Japanese at that time disassembled guns introduced from the West, and Japanese at that time produced guns and used guns on the battlefield during the Warring States Period in Japan.
In the 15th and 16th centuries, Japan was in the midst of a major civil war, and it was said that Japan was the country with the most guns in the world.
Although people tend to think that Japanese swords were the main weapon of Samurai in the Warring States period, Samurai's main weapons were spears, bows, and guns.
The Oda army destroyed the Takeda cavalry, which was said to be the strongest at the time, with guns, and the Oda family destroyed the Takeda family.
The time when the Japanese sword became the main weapon was the 19th century, the era of the end of the Samurai who did not wear armor.
Saito Hajime of the Shinsengumi, who survived that era, said that in a battle with a Japanese sword, it was more powerful to stab to kill than to cut to death.
okay
The ninja did not wear black.
They wore dark blue clothes because black clothes stand out in the dark.
They usually dressed like peasants and other people to keep a low profile.
Why did japanese guns not have stocks? Because of armor?
>it was more powerful to stab to kill than to cut to death.
Yeah it seems this is a sentiment that existed even back in the roman times, so you have to wonder why ppl even bothered to make curved swords when straight swords are so much better:
Isn't it because a curved sword had more killing power because it wouldn't stop bleeding when cutting an enemy?
Japan had not had a civil war for 300 years, but when the United States came to Japan by ship and opened the country to a closed country, another civil war broke out in Japan, but in the early days of Japan's civil war. Samurai usually fought by slashing instead of stabbing to death, but as the samurai fought, they realized that stabbing to death was stronger, and their fighting style changed.
The curved sword is only better at slashing because the curve puts the blade in alignment with the target through the entire stroke. But slashing is really only effective against unarmored opponents, and even back in the roman times, people knew that penetration depth to reach the organs was more lethal than long cuts. Also straight swords give you more reach than a comparatively long curved sword.
this isn't news to me. The mighty, honorable samurai lost every battle with the americans when they fought despite also having guns. This was a rude awakening to the fact that men fighting in formations, and war being fought like a machine was superior to just plane valiance.
> so you have to wonder why ppl even bothered to make curved swords when straight swords are so much better:
A slash from a sword is just as if not more devastating than a gunshot. But when your opponent has armor on. the effectiveness of swings goes down by a lot. Which makes stabbing better to penetrate the armor. A lot of warriors had axes, spears and different types of bludgeons which did the trick when dealing with armor. Which is probably why the majority of european swords were straight.
The U.S. was not willing to participate in the war during World War II, but the U.S. forces were trained soldiers, while the Japanese forces were amateurs whose citizens had been drafted and were not familiar with the handling of guns.
Furthermore, the Japanese army used bolt-action rifles, while the Americans used semi-automatic rifles.
Since the U.S. had the strongest level of resources and industrial strength at the time, it was certain that Japan would lose the war to the U.S. when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor in World War II.
No wonder Churchill said that he was sure that the war was won when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor.
I don't know if Hitler had dementia, but even if Nazi Germany and Japan were allies, it doesn't make sense that Nazi Germany turned against the U.S. Hitler went on a rampage against two sides in the East and the West.
I wasn't talking about world war 2 i was talking aboutsaigo takomori's rebellion in the late 1800s against the american trained army they had at the time.
japan in WW2 gave the united states a run for it's money though was ultimately doomed to fail due to just sheer population size differences and like you said, industrial strength.
Surprisingly despite being allies, nazi germany and japan never actually communicated or strategized together.
Maybe I am not knowledgeable enough, but didn't Takamori Saigou fight against the British and lose, instead of fighting against the Americans?
I learned in my history class that the incident started when an Englishman was disrespectful to a high ranking samurai and the samurai killed the Englishman, which infuriated the English and led to a war between the English and the Satsuma clan led by Takamori Saigo and the English, which the Satsuma clan lost to the English.
>it doesn't make sense that Nazi Germany turned against the U.S
until you actually read anything about the US's actions before they entered the war.
The reason why this sword is shaped like this is because it had a strong ability to kill people when it was cut down.
I think i heard somewhere that the flamberge's shape was cosmetic and not anymore powerful than a regular blade. Those giant zweihander-type swords are historically dubious. Theres little evidence of them being actually used. I'm sure they might have been.
Old news Anon. But there is something to be said about the variety of japanese firearms - most interesting to me the Ōdzutsu, which were large calibre pieces akin to light artillery. They could be fired from the hand or could be mounted on a small carriage, giving them ideal mobility on the rougher terrain of Japan.
>so you have to wonder why ppl even bothered to make curved swords when straight swords are so much better:
Curved swords are easier to use on horseback, as the action of withdrawing the blade when riding past a target is smoother than with a straight blade.
A stabbing motion also leaves one open to attack, while a slash can both be defensive and offensive. Ultimately you want to do both (you can stab with a sabre btw) and only very specialized swords focus entirely on the stab or the slash.
The only somewhat convincing theory about the flamberg shape is that in a bind the wavy shape "shakes" the sword of the opponent more, which could become irritating. But I think it was mainly a cosmetic choice as well.
>Theres little evidence of them being actually used.
Wdym? Great swords were absolutely used.
>but abandoned them
The rear sights were done away with but the bayonet lug as a front sight remained. But yes, for the common combat distances you can just wing it.
I've always wondered with this box design: wouldn't the box be in the way of handling the match cord?
Seems to be similar to this design from the HRE.
Its cool that europeans came up with a similar solution though both ended up having problems with gases escaping. The europeans eventually developed cartridges while the ming used quickly exchanging barrels. They would carry around a 'quiver' for quick firing, though id imagine it was quite heavy. As for the japanese and their matchlock handling in the rain. I have heard about the ashigaru bringing umbrella-like implements in a smilar fashion to the qing in order to better utilize them during adverse conditions.
Breech loading firearms have been around since the 1400s. The main issue that held them back was the gas seal.
>I have heard about the ashigaru bringing umbrella-like implements
In one video about creating match cords, the creator claimed that the book he was basing his process on, also mentioned a specially treated match cord that could burn in rain/especially damp conditions. But he also stated, that the book didn't went into further detail and he couldn't find anything more on it.
My mistake, I did not mean to imply the chinese invented breech loaders, as I know they adopted them from the portuguese I believe; in cannon form atleast. I think its likely that from the initial cannon examples that the chinese thought to miniaturize the system and apply it to small as the breech loaded small arms were comparatively rare even in europe. They seemed to have similar but still distinct solutions. I do wonder why wheellocks were never fully adopted in china for firearms. I believe they independently invented wheellocks as a trigger mechanism but for mines in the 1500s. Even when they did incorporate them into firing mechanisms they puzzlingly did it as part of a hybrid matchlock arquebus.
Adapted not adopted*
>I do wonder why wheellocks were never fully adopted in china for firearms.
I wonder more why matchlocks were kept well into the 19th century in Asia, when contact to other types of locks existed.
Flintlocks are ten times more expensive then a matchlock at least back during the eastern muscovite expedition
Cost doesn't seem to be a factor. By the late 17th century everybody in Europe, North Africa and the Middle East used flintlocks. Only Asia clung to the matchlock for some reason unknown to me.
> Why did japanese guns not have stocks? Because of armor?
Because neither the Japanese nor the Chinese were for some reason able to develop any new designs when it comes to firearms.
The reason they stuck with stockless arquebus designs is because that is the kind of obsolete firearm the Portuguese sailors would have on their ships because iberian style musket stock (aka muskets as we know them today) were too large for ship usage, so the only European designs Asians knew of was that one, and they failed to develop further in any way.
People often state the Japanese using iron sights as some genius ploy yet that also came from European sailor buses, Euroshits had iron sights since the 1440s, but abandoned them because smoothbore barrels made them irrelevant anyway.
Similar how both the Japanese and Chinese kept with the matchlock mechanism well into the 19th century, whereas in Europe you had like 15 mechanisms like wheellock, snaplock, snapchance, flintlock etc. developing by the late 1500s.
So I guess, to stop this ramble, the reason the Japanese didn't develop the far superior musket stock design,
is because no European came and showed it to them.
> the only European designs Asians knew of was that one
That's not true at all, the stock one was listed in the Wubei Zhi they just liked the ottoman designs more and replaced it with that later on.
> Because neither the Japanese nor the Chinese were for some reason able to develop any new designs when it comes to firearms...
Here is a primary source for some weapon development in the ming: <神器譜> it is a treatise that includes some innovations on the firearms used by the ming, and has completely new types of firearms aswell.
Both the japanese and chinese experimented with gun designs as their were inherent flaws with the matchlock designs that were imported, the largest issue being that they were near useless in bad weather. The ming government had armories that designed guns to meet certain specifications. They designed new firing mechanisms, loading mechanisms, and methods of utilization. The japanese used a more novel approach and simply encased the firing mechanism in a laquer box. I will post examples.
Picrel is a japanese 'improved' arquebus design meant for rainy conditions. It may not be an elegant solution but it got the job done and demonstrated that innovations could be made and were implemented.
Some chinese breech loading arquebus. Also there not their*; not esl I swear.
Curvature was a side effect of the clay moderated quenching process that japanese smiths used to harden the edge more than the spine. It was also considered desirable because it made the sword easier to use from horseback. Later on, there was also adherence to tradition and a bunch of wankery about elegant flowing cuts that also pushed for the curve to remain.
I still don't understand the curved blade better from horseback thing. If anything there's something about the slashing motion being more efficient which is often given as a reason for the use of sabres but what exactly makes a curved blade better from a horse? Easier to handle it without hitting the horse? Straight sword would have longer reach with the same weight and that would be more important imo.
Curved blades are easier to extract when riding past a target. For other reasons see
But when armor was more common/covered the body more, polearms were the primary weapon of cavalry anyways.
Draw cutting is better facilitated whilst riding past. With straight sword drills if i i remember they tend to snap cut or thrust more. But even still i think most Kenjutsu schools tend to use the katana like a longsword anyways.
Wouldn't it be effective if a cavalryman slashed his saber at a horse instead of a man?
Curved saber like swords are better when on a horse, simple as
Whats the point of this copy paste thread from wikipedia anon?
Neto oyo morons from online forums do this a lot because they make videos about how foreigners react to their country.
The U.S. opened Japan, which had been closed to the rest of the world, but then the Civil War broke out in the U.S. and the U.S. was busy. The old shogunate side had French support, and the new government side had British support.
The end of the samurai period was also a proxy war between England and France.
Japan was the first in East Asia to westernize, but Japan won the war against Russia in World War I. Britain, which was hostile to Russia at the time, was overjoyed when Japan won the war against Russia, but it may be because Japan was buoyed by its war victory over the great Russian power, leading up to World War II.
Are you sure you aint thinking bout russian-nip war of 1904?
Although there was a considerable difference between Russia and Japan in terms of national power at the time of the Russo-Japanese War, Japan was able to win the war against Russia at that time probably because the Japanese naval commander, Heihachiro Togo, was a rather brilliant soldier, and also because of the support of Great Britain.
In the case of Europe, people wore iron equipment, so there was a time when blunt weapons such as maces were the mainstream.
However, the Vikings used axes as weapons, but were they strong?
>it was said that Japan was the country with the most guns in the world.
If you read the the number of gunners in a battle the Japanese army had in Imjin and Nagashino it doesn't seem that high really.
So they stopped using guns in the 19th century after they won a civil war with them?
What do you mean?
Wasn't fighting with a Japanese sword stronger than using old guns?
No?
Japanese wheellock adapted arauebus. They were rare but did exist.
Samurai didn't fight
I don't know if samurai fought in the 15th and 16th centuries, but in the 19th century, samurai were killing each other with Japanese swords.
Hattori Hanzo is a samurai general who led a group of ninjas, though I think of him as a ninja.
I don't know if Samurai fought in this way, but there are Japanese sword slash marks on the ceiling of the house in Kyoto where Serizawa Kamo, the man assassinated in this video, died.
?si=wdDjcFdQ9wFScmHO
i always found it funny how they placed the iron sword disk onto their damaged eyes. It kinda seems like a pop culture gimick
Oda's army destroyed the cavalry of Takeda's army, which was the strongest in Japan, at the Battle of Nagashino.
?si=3WAcxwTSYdvzoSg-
The Azuchi-Momoyama Castle built by Nobunaga Oda was a pretty cool design and would have been a world heritage site had it not disappeared.
In fact, the Mongolian army that invaded Japan in the 13th century used gunpowder grenades.
It was the Chinese who invented gunpowder, and Westerners invented guns.
>>it was the Chinese who invented gunpowder
>he said on IQfy
is that a revelation to you, anon?
Not the purified explosive type of gunpowder. Chinese gunpowder weaponry was almost entirely pyrotechnics because everything in east Asia was built out of wood. They couldn't invade Southeast Asia or India because they had stone fortifications. There's a reason Mongol advancements stop entirely after there's either a large body of water blocking their advancement or any sort of fortification greater than a stockade. The fire lance did exactly what it said on the tin, it was a lance that emitted flames. The fire bomb also is a direct description it was a bomb that produced fire. The first people to create gunpowder that could cause explosions were in the middle east, they're either Christian or Arab no one knows for certain. 'Gunpowder' is something people can accidentally make on a farm, Chinese gunpowder was an enhanced version that created more flames. They had fireworks but those didn't see nearly as much use as the fire lance did. Hand cannons were the first true guns, fire lances were closer to flamethrowers. There's evidence of China, SEA, Mongols, and Arabs using hand cannons first, but fire lances remained as mainstay weaponry, there's very little evidence that they used hand cannons much at all, there's plenty of depicts of them using fire lances however even samurai had them. Pyrotechnic weaponry was the main interest in east Asia because it was the most formidable against wooden structures, they had a particular obsession with fire arrows.
I dont understand where this misconception keeps reappearing. The chinese had different recipes and methods of application for blackpowder and they had different uses for each variant (detonation/ projectile/incendiary). They also invented a massive array of weapons using said powders (cannon, guns, rockets, firelances, mines, etc). The initial black powder recipes had useless ingredients like honey and arsenic which were flaws replicated in the initial powders of every other country; meaning the origins of said powder should not really be in dispute. Al-Rammah even refers to salpeter as ثلج الصين (chinese snow) in his documents on the creation of gunpowder (This is relevant as the islamic nations were very early adopters). The first gun that has a verifiable date is the xanadu gun made during the Yuan dynasty and it has the year of production and serial number which indicated that production had been standardized for sometime already. If you want to learn more about early blackpowder along with its history and use, I would suggest reading some Needham. Needham, Joseph, and Robin D. S. Yates. Science and Civilization in China, Volume 5: Chemistry and Chemical Technology VI: Military Technology. London: Cambridge University Press, 1994.(This specifically). The Wujing Zongyao (1044AD) is a primary source on weapons during the song dynasty which predates any use of blackpowder outside of china along with its periphery and has the first accurate recipe for gunpowder ever written/printed.
That's what makes it suspect to me. The Mongols did it first, not the Chinese. I mentioned this, the fact it's called 'China snow' implies they picked up the recipe from the region where China was, potash isn't exactly a common resource in Arabia, China has many salt marches. Greeks used to call silk 'serikos' as in 'Seres' both the Greek and Latin word for silk was the same as their name for China. The earliest verifiable records of someone using a cannon were the Mamluks around 1320 or so I'm aware of the Xanadu gun, I'm just not surprised it was Yuan dynasty, it was found in Inner Mongolia, so it's hard to attribute it to Chinese. Nor would this weapon be useful in any way to Chinese, they didn't need high impact explosions since there weren't many stone fortifications at all, the weapon itself was too weak to be lethal. It makes sense that Mongols and Arabs would make it because they wanted projectiles that could pierce armor and siege castles. Xanadu gun is one of the worst examples to use when attributing this to Chinese.
I do also know they had projectile gunpowder, you're thinking of the Huo Che. The fire rocket. Note the trend: fire. Fire was the most useful implement in their style of warfare there was next to no use for something like a hand cannon when their primary tactic is human waves and wooden forts, fire is simply more effective.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huo_Che
I do generally agree with your ascertation that the chinese did not use blackpowder as often for projectiles. It seems early on they were focused with the incendiary effects of it. However the first ever cannons are not found in inner mongolia or mongolia proper. I used the xanadu gun as an example because it demonstrated guns have already been used for a time and its manufacture could be precisely verified. The design was developed and refined. Serialized production took place and the markings on the guns just show to prove that. Also the fact the Yuan dynasty produced the firearms does not mean the mongols did. It was the chinese that created their palaces; made the bulk of their armies; and created their engines of war. The mongols were great at incorporating those innovations. The mongols also incorporated persian siege engines to aide in their fight against the chinese.Those inscriptions on the xanadu would imply that guns themselves were a mature technology relatively. Manufacturing markings are a hallmark of chinese production. Also Wu Wei in gansu was a province firmly within the domains of the Western Xia. There was a cannon (more primitive than the xanadu example) that weighed 108kg and was dated between 1214 and 1227 that was discovered. There were also smaller cannons discovered in the same area. It was rudimentary but older than the xanadu example and displayed that there was an evolution that occured with the weapons and that its origins werent mongolian. The song dynasty was a turbulent era and many states were warring with each other. The jurchen jin wore much armor and that could have likely been the impetus to develop weapons that could pierce.
>because everything in east Asia was built out of wood.
That makes absolutely no sense if you do even a little bit of research. Even in the 5th century stone mountain forts were the most important and the largest defence installations in Manchuria.
It is said that the Samurai of the period at the time of the Mongol invasion were like gangs, a more barbaric group than the Mongol army.
When Toyotomi Hideyoshi became the ruler of Japan in the 15th century, he invaded Korea, but according to documents, the Samurai were equipped with Glitzy anyway.
If Nobunaga Oda or Hideyoshi Toyotomi had not died, Japan would have entered the Age of Exploration.
Because Tokugawa Ieyasu had no ambition and disliked war, the Tokugawa family kept Japan closed for 300 years, and Japan lagged behind in civilization compared to the West.
If only
Doubt. They were bad at shipbuilding. Up until the Portuguese arrived they only had coastal ships that were generally less formidable than even war canoes. Japan entering the age of exploration is like Mali entering the age of exploration. There's an account of Japan trying to build a massive warship with iron plating, according to the Portuguese it was the biggest ship they've ever seen. The ship split in half before making it far off the coast. That civilization 'lag' was far greater than the lag of virtually every other country in the world, even Mesoamerica was more advanced they were. By a wide margin.
THIS
How the frick does an island people suck at sailing? They rely on seafood for their protein so obviously they go out to the ocean, but it baffles me that they never developed a maritime culture and naval power.
>How the frick does an island people suck at sailing?
They likely settled the islands sometime during the LGM when there was much less water between Japan and mainland Asia. Japan is large enough that some people could go their whole lives without even seeing the ocean.
Yes but sea transport is much cheaper and faster than land transport. Japan's an archipelago, my ancestors were Dutch and Norwegian; neither of them island people yet they turned to the sea for trade and exploration.
I just don't understand how Japan didn't have the incentive or curiosity to build proper ocean-going ships to trade with the rest of the world. Or if I was a disgraced nobleman or a disgruntled fisherman, I'd go off with others to escape that oppressive shitbox archipelago.
Japanese are timid. They lack the intrepid nature that Pacific Islanders had.
Toyotomi Hideyoshi invaded Korea.
Oda Nobunaga and Toyotomi Hideyoshi are full of ambition.
Tokugawa Ieyasu, who ultimately unified Japan, was cowardly.
Apparently he leaked some crap when he was about to lose to the Takeda army.
I made a mistake.
Toyotomi Hideyoshi invaded Korea.
Oda Nobunaga and Toyotomi Hideyoshi are full of ambition.
Tokugawa Ieyasu, who ultimately unified Japan, was cowardly.
Apparently he leaked some crap when he was about to lose to the Takeda army.
the Japanese inherited a strong sense of arrogant cultural seclusion from the Chinese. As far as they were concerned, with the exception of Japanese pirate crews that raided southeast Asia for booty from time to time, there was nothing beyond their island that interested them much except for a moderate stream of trade to and from China and occasionally Korea. Japs just didn't care much what was going on in the rest of the world.
Nobunaga Oda was like Hitler, but he liked new things, he bought black slaves brought by westerners and made them his entourage, he was tolerant of Christianity.
His armor is said to be like this.
Tokugawa Ieyasu closed the country, suppressed Christianity and expelled forces outside Japan.
Shinsengumi is my favorite group of samurai.
?si=fNVC8_y5ewqRtf89
Somewhat true. Swords were a symbol of the samurai before the 18th century. They were easy to carry and effective for one on one duels during the Edo era. Also there are many records of Nodachi long swords being used on the battlefield. Katanas were also useful on horseback like an saber and combat on horseback was the original role of the samurai. Guns, spears, naginata, and bows were used by peasant infantry (who were not samurai by the way) due to their low cost and greater effectiveness in large numbers. So it makes sense that swords are associated more with samurai even if the samurai did also use those other weapons, and in the battlefields of the Sengoku era tended to do so more often. The whole honorable vs dishonorable weapons thing as a moral concept is a meme though. Samurai were professional warriors first and foremost. They trained in whatever weapon they needed to in order to get the job done
>naginata
>used by peasant infantry
Curved swords are better because you can have a hard edge, without making the whole sword brittle. They were forged without the bent, the bent happened during the quenching.
You can do that with straight swords too
The chinese had plenty of fortresses that were not made of wood. In fact Möngke Khan died during the siege of one though there are conflicting reports in regards to what fashion he died in ranging from an arrow, stone cannon, to dysentary from the persian records. The diaoyucheng (chinese mountain fortress) held off invasion for 36 years. and forced the withdrawal of troops from Syria. I feel there is a common misconception that east asians made fortresses soley out of wood. When that was mostly a japanese issue due to earthquakes. Many fortresses in china and korea are stone and brick with wood for their turrets.