Laminated - bamboo facings over hardwood strips.Originally posted by Robert Miller
I was wondering how the japanese bow was constructed, historically. Any resources? Thank you.
Check out the late Onuma-s.'s Kyudo.
HTH.
Laminated - bamboo facings over hardwood strips.Originally posted by Robert Miller
I was wondering how the japanese bow was constructed, historically. Any resources? Thank you.
Check out the late Onuma-s.'s Kyudo.
HTH.
Raymond Sosnowski
"Setsunintoh, Katsuninken, Shinmyohken."
The Japanese bow was originally what is called a "self bow"; that is, a bow made from a single piece of wood. Over the centuries it developed in a number of stages, to wit:
Fusedake yumi - a wooden bow with a bamboo facing
Sanmai uchi yumi - a core of wood sandwiched between two strips of bamboo
Shihodake yumi - a core of wood completely enclosed with bamboo strips on all four sides
Higo yumi - a core of bamboo slats (higo) glued together, enclosed between two bamboo strips, and edged with hardwood. In the higo yumi, the central core is usually made from an odd number of slats (3, 5, or 7, usually) the grain of which is set at right angles to the grain of the bamboo facings. The hardwood edging is usually made from a very stiff hardwood called haze (waxwood).
As mentioned above, Kyudo: The Essence and Practice of Japanese Archery by Onuma and Deprospero gives a good historical overview of the development of the Japanese bow.
Earl Hartman
I was just browsing around the forum when this question popped into my head. Not sure what triggered it, but... I've read about pretty much every weapon of feudal Japan being taught in one ryu or another, however, I can't ever remember hearing of a kyujutsu ryu. I'm sure they existed as the bow was the principal weapon of the bushi up until, I believe, the Muromachi period and continued to play a major role in warfare after that. So, are there any extant ryu of koryu kyujutsu?
Much appreciated! ^_^
AFAIK, both Ogasawara-ryu and Heki-ryu are still alive up to this day
Luiz Kobayashi
I suppose the answer to that question really depends on what is meant by "koryu kyujutsu". The practice of yabusame is mainained by the Ogasawara Ryu and the Takeda Ryu, and there are various factions of the Heki Ryu (which has, or had, a very large number of regional branches).
However, the only group I know of that still actually practices the battlefield shooting techniques of the foot-soldier is the Satsuma Heki Ryu, based in the town of Izumi in Miyazaki Prefecture in Kyushu. I believe that this school is based on the teachings of the Insai-ha of the Heki Ryu, which was founded by Yoshida Genpachiro Shigeuji, also known by the name Issuiken Insai.
One thing to remember about kyujutsu is that it has always played a very prominent role in court ceremony. The bow was, originally, the aristocratic weapon par excellence. The bushi referred to themselves as kyuba no ie (the house of the bow and horse) and the way of life they followed as kyuba no michi (the way of the horse and the bow). This is in contradistinction to the West, where the bow was the weapon of the yeoman or the villein. In addition, archery was one of the six Confucuian gentlemanly arts, and this attitude was absorbed by the Japanese. Kyudo/jutsu, from the very beginning, and especially at court, was treated as an aristocratic pastime. In addition, the bow was used in various quasi-religious archery ceremonies done to ensure a good harvest and peace for the realm, etc. This use of the bow is pretty much the province of the Ogasawara Ryu, as I understand it. In any case, archery of this type has no battlefield application whatsoever, no matter how old it is.
The Heki Ryu has always been considered the archery of the foot soldier. It has, AFAIK, no mounted techniques. The Satsuma Heki Ryu is probably the closest one can get nowadays to the actual battlefield techniques of the feudal warrior, altough their fire-and-manouver tactics were, I was told, influenced by 18th century French musket drill (!). In addition, while they wear armor, they do not wear kabuto but wear an eboshi (a black peaked ceremonial hat) which allows them to draw the arrow to the cheek in the modern fashion. Due to the presence of the fukigaeshi (armor protecting the sides of the face) on the kabuto, it was not possible for a fully armored figter to draw the arrow to the cheek; it apparently was drawn either to the chin or the chest.
Earl Hartman
Very interesting indeed.
What, do you think, is the reason why battlefield koryu kyujutsu has nearly been expunged? Do you think, perhaps, that it became so relegated to the place of the foot-soldier that it was ignored during the Edo period's sword craze?
During the Korean campaign, the Japanese military largely re-equipped with matchlocks. Archery was then relegated to specialist functions. During the subsequent Tokugawa regime, the firearms makers went out of business, but there were still armorers polishing the muskets in the government arsenals, and professional soldiers still studied their proper employment on the battlefield.
Joe
http://ejmas.com
Just as in Europe, the introduction of firearms spelled the end of the bow as a major weapon, and for the same reasons: it takes less training to become proficient with a gun than a bow.
However, traditions die hard. Bushi continued to train in archery, but it changed just as many of the other bugei did: most of the pre-Edo martial traditions were comprehensive systems; the Edo period saw the proliferaton of schools dedicated to the use of the sword as a personal dueling weapon for unarmored fighting, where training was done mostly in a dojo, as opposed to a battlefield weapon. The same thing was true for kyujutsu.
The continued existence of the Satsuma Heki Ryu is roughly analagous, it seems to me, to the continued existence of a school such as the Tenshinshoden Katori Shinto Ryu, which still emphasizes the battlefield use of their weapons (if I understand it correctly).
Earl Hartman
The adoption of the gun over the bow is something that I've always wondered about. I understand that it requires much less training to learn how to use a firearm, however, even after firearms became the mainstay weapon of the battlefield (in Europe at least) the bow could brag of having much better performance. If I recall correctly, an English longbow (of the type used during the 100 Years War) had an effective range of roughly 200 meters while several centuries later, most Brown Bess muskets topped out at 50-60 meters. Not to mention that bows had a MUCH higher rate of fire than early firearms. Then again, using a longbow frequently took years of practice to build up the proper muscle to fire one effectively and probably had less energy than firearms projectiles. Then there's there's the point of comparing a "normal" European bow against a firearm. *shakes his head* Such a topic. ^_~
Archery takes a lot of strength, and the weapons cannot be stored strung. Thus, putting them into action takes awhile.
Meanwhile, early matchlocks were essentially improved crossbows and arbalests. The stocks and sights are the same, and like crossbows, they could be loaded by people in back and handed to shooters at the walls. Not too good offensively, to be sure, but outstanding in the defense, as they penetrated armor and frightened horses.
Muskets can also be stored in government arsenals, and only brought out in times of war, thereby ensuring the masses are less likely to shoot down tax collectors and landlords.
One other thing. Archers needed pikemen to defend them from cavalry. Musketeers, on the other hand, could form squares, and go anywhere they liked, regardless of what else was on the battlefield. This leads to Napoleonic warfare, where battalions form squares, and cannon stand alone. You can see some of this in "Gettysburg" and "Gods and Generals."
As for the Japanese use of musketry, read "Giving Up the Gun," or watch "Kagemusha."
Last edited by Joseph Svinth; 3rd July 2004 at 07:58.
Joe
http://ejmas.com
I hadn't ever thought of it before, but it seems to me that archers could form squares just as easily as soldiers with guns. And concentrated fire from English longows is pretty good defense against cavalry (at least if it's French).
However, we must remember that it was not the bow that carried the field against the flower of French chivalry at Crecy, Poitiers and Agincourt. It was the English (or, more properly, the Welsh) longbow that did it. The English weapon was far superior to anything the continental Europeans had, and could shoot through just about anything until armor finally was improved to the point where it took a gun to pierce it.
Earl Hartman
Earl --
My guess is that the smoke, noise, and flame associated with black powder musketry kept horses back.
Consider, for example, the 93rd Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders at Balaklava ("the thin red line tipped with steel"). Despite all the paintings, the Highlanders were actually standing on the back side of a small hill, so were partly protected by terrain, and there were no Russians falling dead from their horses at the tips of the British bayonets. Anyway, from http://www.xenophongi.org/crimea/war...va/balabat.htm :
QUOTE
The Russian cavalry marched forward, then began its galloping charge. The British first volley was delivered at 600 yards with no effect. The second volley at 350 yards and the one artillery battery's fire caused the Russians to wheel leftward and the third volley at 150 yards broke the cavalry attack. They turned about in the thick smoke and retired across the Causeway, leaving no casualties on the field. The moral effect, however, was significant. There were plenty of Russian casualties, but they all managed to remain in the saddle until they reached their own lines.
END QUOTE
In short, the effect of the British musketry wasn't what you'd see in the US Civil War just a decade later. That is, the folks didn't start killing at 600 yards, and then keep killing all the way in. Instead, the noise, flame, smoke, and unbroken appearance of the Highlanders caused the Russian horses and riders to panic. The Russian generals were thereby forced to withdraw and regroup.
Joe
http://ejmas.com
Speaking of Balaclava, have you read Flashman At the Charge by George MacDonald Frasier? Great book. Flashy describes the incident you mention.
First volley at 600 yards? If that's a musket volley as opposed to an artillery barrage, well, of course nothing happened.
Oh, yeah, another thing: you can see arrows coming and maybe, if there are only one or two of them and you can see them in time, you can duck, get your shield up in time, or knock them out of the way. AFAIK, nobody has yet figured out how to dodge a bullet.
Earl Hartman
It's been probably 30 years since I read Flashy at the Charge. Flashy is always lots of fun.
At 150 yards, I'm not surprised the folks didn't cause any casualties, as a Prussian study showed that a flintlock-armed battalion literally couldn't hit the broad side of a barn at 100 yards. By the 1860s, though, things were a lot different -- the .50 caliber Sharps rifles that slaughtered the bison herds and (at least according to legend) made the 1,200 yard shot near Adobe Walls in 1874 were military surplus Sharps Model 151 rifle-muskets converted to percussion cap ignition systems and rebored to .50-70 Government. (Big Fifty, made famous in the books and movies, cost $118 in 1874, which would be a bit spendy for the average hide hunter of the 1870s.)
Anyway, I think we're reading history backwards. In the musket days, you had to hold your fire until 30 yards or less to ensure killing. The flame, smoke, and noise, however, would have discouraged most cavalry. The cavalry meanwhile hoped that the sight of mounted men moving 20+ mph en masse would panic the infantry, and make it flee, in which case it would be run down and lanced...
Joe
http://ejmas.com
Well, damn, >30 yards to make sure you could hit somebody? I'm completely confused, now. A good archer could certainly hit his target at, say, twice that distance, and had a more rapid rate of fire, too. An English longowman was fined if he practiced at a target closer that >200 yards and was expected to be able to get off 12 shots a minute, or one shot every 5 seconds. Even if he was a klutz, if he was within 50 yards, which was outside the effective range of a musket, and could get off more shots, it seems he would have the advantage.
Actually, I heard that Ben Frankln suggested that the new American army have archer squads to fight the Brits. You're the historian: did it ever happen?
Earl Hartman