mounted archery tactics

[Stéphan Thériault]

I've read a few of the Osprey military books dealing with the samurai, as well as some of Stephen Tunrbull's books. And I have to ask, what tactics did they used for mounted archers? I am especially wonderering about the Sengoku-jidai period. None of these books really ever get into the types of tactics used. I am wondering; considering their earlier experience with the mongols, wether there mounted tactics were influenced by them in any way?

Any info is greatly appreciated. Thanks!

[Soulend]

Are you referring to the techniques used by mounted archers, or against them? Sorry, it's late..:)

[Aaron Fields]

The Japanese exposure to Mongol mounted tactics was minimal, as the invading armies were not largely composed of Mongols (they were conscripts.) Them there Mongols were at home doin' Mongol stuff, which is not sailing. “Why walk, when there is a horse?”

[ben johanson]

Stephen,

First of all, mounted archery was almost none existant on the battlefields of the Sengoku period, so there really aren't any tactics to speak of during that time. In fact, when Shimazu Toyohisa carried a bow with him into the battle of Sekigahara in 1600, it was considered so unusual for the time that a chronicler of the battle took particular note of it.

That said, I have to ask the same question as Soulend: which tactics do you mean? Those used by mounted archers or against mounted archers?

I do know that by the Mongol invasions the Japanese were given an impetus to rely more on fighting on foot. Their antiquated tactics of mounted archery proved rather ineffective against the Mongol armies, forcing the samurai to dismount and engage them in close hand-to-hand combat. Many scholars believe that the Mongol invasions were really what jump-started the developement of swordsmanship because the sword assumed a much more important and expanded role in the sruggle than it ever had before.

[Meik Skoss]

As Aaron (hi, Aaron! Are we gonna meet at Kagami Biraki in January?) says, most of the invading forces in the Mongols' army were Chinese and Korean conscripts. Yes, some Mongols came along, with their horses and bows 'n arrows, but most of the other guys were forced to participate.

If you're interested in mounted archery, probably the only thing to do is look at yabusame. It's not really *tactics*, so much as it is *technique* for shooting from horseback. I rather doubt that there's anybody doing formation shooting these days, at least while mounted. Dismounted yumi guys're training down in Kumamoto, moving and firing in formation, but it's a completely different style of shooting. Withal, it's really neat stuff. The name of the style was Nihon-ryu if I remember correctly; it's been a good fifteen to twenty years since I saw it.

So, for mounted archery, Ogasawara-ryu. For archery on foot you probably want to look at the old-timey Heki-ryu guys if there are any still around. Most of the Heki-ryu is pretty much the same as standard kyudo nowadays, with little or no effort being made to preserve "battlefield" techniques.

[Stéphan Thériault]

Thank you all for your replies. What I meant by tactics, was simply the way in which the mounted archer would have been used historically. For exemple would they have been used as front line troops, or more as skirmishers to harass the enemy lines?

[Earl Hartman]

Meik:

The bows `n` armor guys down in Kumamoto are the Satsuma Heki Ryu. Their school is originally based on the teachings of Issuiken Insai (originally Yoshida Genpachiro Shigeuiji), founder of the Insai-ha of the Heki Ryu. As you say, seriously cool stuff. According to what I was told when I went down and visited them, their use of organized formations and alternating volley shooting was instituted by the lord of Shimazu (Nariaki, I think) about 200 years ago and is based on European battlefield musket drill (French, I think).

Their technique consists of two distinct elements: "sashiya", or long distance shooting where the archers lay down a covering barrage to allow their spearmen to advance on the enemy, and "koshiya", close distance shooting, where the archers form ranks and advance on the enemy as they fire in turns, eventually reaching the enemy lines, where, after firing their last arrows, they use their bows, the upper tips of which were apparently fitted with something resembling a spear point, as thrusting weapons.

Yabusame is presently practiced by the Ogasawara Ryu and the Takeda Ryu.

I have never heard of the Nihon Ryu. Draeger mentions it in his first book, but I`m fairly certain that he was referring to the Yamato Ryu (written with the characters for Nihon, but read as "Yamato"), which, according to what I have read, is one of the names for a semi-mythical ancient school for which there is no hard historical evidence.

[Karl Friday]

Originally posted by Stéphan Thériault
I've read a few of the Osprey military books dealing with the samurai, as well as some of Stephen Tunrbull's books. And I have to ask, what tactics did they used for mounted archers? I am especially wonderering about the Sengoku-jidai period. None of these books really ever get into the types of tactics used. I am wondering; considering their earlier experience with the mongols, wether there mounted tactics were influenced by them in any way?

The combination of weak bows, sturdy armor and arrows carried in numbers too few to permit any to be wasted forced the early samurai to shoot only at very close range-usually ten meters or less-and to target with precision the gaps and weak points in the armor of specific opponents. The combination of puny mounts, awkward, weighty armor, and the rarity of open terrain would have precluded the sweeping charges and feigned retreats favored by the warriors of the Asian steppe--such as the Mongols--even if the samurai had wished to fight that way.

Instead therefore, Japanese warriors developed a distinctive, somewhat peculiar form of light cavalry tactics that involved individuals and small groups circling and maneuvering around one another in the hopes of getting a shot at an enemy from an angle at which he could not return fire.

The angle of approach was, in fact, a key consideration, because the bowman could shoot only to his left side, along an arc of roughly 45 degrees, from the ten or eleven o'clock to about the nine o'clock position. Attempting to shoot at a sharper angle to the front would result in either bumping the horse's neck with the bow or bowstring, or spooking the mount when the arrow was released and flew too close to his face. Attempting to shoot at a sharper angle to the rear would have twisted the archer right out of his saddle. And shooting the lengthy Japanese bow to the right of the horse's neck would have called for the flexibility of a contortionist.

Accordingly, the tactics for combat between mounted samurai bore an intriguing resemblance to those of dogfighting aviators. In this sort of fighting, horsemanship often counted for as much as marksmanship, as Oba Kageyoshi's report of his encounter with Minamoto Tametomo during the Hogen Conflict (1156) illustrates:

"Tametomo was a bowman without peer in our realm. . . . For this reason when . . . I found myself facing his left side and he attempted to draw his bow . . . I galloped around to his right side and rode past him, below his bow sights. Thus the arrow he meant for my body struck my knee instead. Had I not known this trick, I surely would have lost my life. A stalwart needs only to be expert at horsemanship."

The political structure and the composition of armies in early medieval Japan further determined the tactical options available: Heian and Kamakura era armies were temporary, irregular assemblages, constructed through complex private military networks. Warriors knit together needed forces by calling on the members of small core bands of fighting men, subordinate allies, and (unless the conflict was a purely private affair) military officers of provincial governments. This arrangement offered commanders few, if any, opportunities to drill with their troops in large-scale, coordinated group tactics, and mitigated against fielding disciplined and well-articulated armies.

Instead, tactical cooperation devolved to smaller units and components. The fighting men who composed these monadic organizations lived and trained in close proximity to one another, honing their skills through a variety of regimens and competitive games. Hence they were able to coordinate and cooperate on the battlefield, and to harmonize their actions to those of close associates with an impressive degree of discipline and fluidity. The result was that early medieval battles tended to be aggregates of smaller combats: melees of archery duels and brawls between small groups, punctuated by general advances and retreats, and by volleys of arrows launched by bowmen on foot, protected by portable walls of shields.

Light cavalry dominated the warfare of the tenth to thirteenth centuries. But by the sixteenth century it had all-but disappeared from Japanese battlefields. By this time samurai armies were built around light infantry augmented by heavy cavalry and heavy infantry. The sequence and timing of the evolutions that led to this very dramatic shift has become a topic of wide-ranging debate among a handful of scholars. To date, very little has emerged by way of new consensus, but the broad outline of developments does seem clear enough to permit the conclusion that mounted archery began to fall out of favor with politically-determined changes to the composition and organization of armies and the objectives of war.

[Stéphan Thériault]

Thank you mr.Friday, that pretty much answered all the questions I had.