Nagashino-And Oda victory without the Arquebuisers?

**Tachikaze** · 05-04-2002, 01:37

Perhaps the real turning point (as far as Japan was concerned) was not so much the end of cavalry, but changing of their roles. They were evolving, because of the improvement of guns and gunnery, from main shock units back to what they had been in ancient times: flankers, skirmishers, and support troops.

The cavalry soldiers saw themselves as elite, but musketry was where the decisions were made. "Elite" units have always overstayed their welcome throughout history. Consider Darius' chariots at Arbela, the rigid hoplite phalanxes vs. flexible Roman legions, infantry bayonet and cavalry charges in WWI, battleships in WWII.

------------------
Knowing the Tao saves you thousands of dollars in psychiatric bills and credit card debt.

**Jaguara** · 05-04-2002, 01:46

Thanks Tachi,

That was essentially part of the point I was trying to make. That cavalry had to be adapted to the changing environment...

I like how you illustrated the point with the other examples though. Each one all too true.

**CEWest** · 05-05-2002, 00:07

I talked to FWSeal and he said that some Japanese professor said that the original documents 'clearly state that the number of guns was only a few hundred, and the mistake in transcription has persisted into other documents' but he doesn't know what sort of authority this guy is, so there is no way of knowing if that is valid or not.

[This message has been edited by CEWest (edited 05-04-2002).]

**Tac** · 05-05-2002, 01:54

a few hundred guns... firing at maybe 2 times a minute murdering a cavalry and infantry charge of thousands in just a few hundred yards? Highly unlikely.

**Jaguara** · 05-06-2002, 19:14

Quote Originally posted by Tac:
a few hundred guns... firing at maybe 2 times a minute murdering a cavalry and infantry charge of thousands in just a few hundred yards? Highly unlikely. [/QUOTE]

No, but 40,000 spearmen on a hillside, across a river, covered by palisades, with fire-support from a few hundred gunners could do that quite nicely...

**CEWest** · 05-06-2002, 22:38

Quote Originally posted by Jaguara:
No, but 40,000 spearmen on a hillside, across a river, covered by palisades, with fire-support from a few hundred gunners could do that quite nicely...
[/QUOTE]
Hard to argue with that

**Tachikaze** · 05-07-2002, 01:47

I think much of what happens in landmark battles gets exaggerated towards any new innovation. Some accounts of Agincourt make it sound like the Welsh yeoman archers shot all of the arrogant French knights dead and the remaining few of Henry's army (none of which were arrogant knights) sat around picking their teeth, waiting to kill prisoners. But Agincourt and Nagashino almost certainly featured the usual elements of contemporary warfare, including the participation of core rank-and-file footsoldiers who are always under-reported in these accounts. The authors often hook on to one special element that makes a good story and that's what sticks in the minds of the readers.

I won't even bother to get into the Battle of Thermopylae.

So, Jaguar and CEWest's last posts are on the mark. Just think of a normal Sengoku battle with more emphasis on teppo on the Oda side (to his credit) and greater tactical field preparation, including palisades, made possible by Takeda K's incompetence. But with the main battling still involving spearmen, archers, cavalry, and battlefield ninja

.

Did they have 3000 gunners? Since the total force is reported as 38,000 (thus, a little under 8% teppo), I think it's very possible, although I'll bet they weren't all well-trained. Matchlocks were bit players previously, due to their shortcomings, but they were becoming increasingly prominent as new tactics like firing in ranks were developed.

However, it's also likely the numbers of teppo were exaggerated because of the importance they had on the outcome of the battle and the emotional impact on the witnesses of the event. I imagine there were more than a few hundred. That small a number was common at the time and probably wouldn't have made any headlines.

------------------
Knowing the Tao saves you thousands of dollars in psychiatric bills and credit card debt.

**Wavesword** · 05-07-2002, 05:10

Amusing postscript to battle:

When Oda Nobundaga inspected the head of Takeda Katsuyori the right eye was closed and the left eye was enlivened with a scowl. Nobundaga was moved to sympathy at the sight of the dead head of the powerful general, and it is recorded that all concerned that Nobundaga had been victorious in battle, but had been defeated by Katsuyori's head.

From Stephen Turnbull's - Samurai Warlords: The Book of the Daimyo.

**Papewaio** · 05-07-2002, 06:25

If you lost the battle you would be looking for an excuse.

Daimyo was an idiot - better wait till he is dead to voice that one.

Palisades - bet them before

Hills - seen them before

Charging through a stream - done that before

Enemy Samurai on horse - a challenge

Enemy Samurai on foot - less of a challenge

Enemy Ashi spearmen - only count these kills when you have equaled an opponent (ancient form of a countback).

Having a total of enemy Samurai and Ashi 2:1 - well we have won in the past against those odds.

Ah Enemy gunmen, who were relatively green, missed most of their shots, but never encountered them in such numbers before - ah that must be the reason, tell the tales a few times and the numbers go up.

So don't blame it on charging through a creek, up a hill (making the earth nice and muddy), into a palisade, being outnumbered two to one and having a Daimyo whose only excuse is that 'I promised my mummy that I would win today'.

**CEWest** · 05-07-2002, 07:33

It wouldn't surprise me if Turnbull had actually written that, considering Katsuyori died in 1582

Quote Originally posted by Wavesword:
Amusing postscript to battle:

When Oda Nobundaga inspected the head of Takeda Katsuyori the right eye was closed and the left eye was enlivened with a scowl. Nobundaga was moved to sympathy at the sight of the dead head of the powerful general, and it is recorded that all concerned that Nobundaga had been victorious in battle, but had been defeated by Katsuyori's head.

From Stephen Turnbull's - Samurai Warlords: The Book of the Daimyo.[/QUOTE]

[This message has been edited by CEWest (edited 05-07-2002).]

**Wavesword** · 05-08-2002, 04:44

In fairness to S.T., yes he did say that, but if I'd included that surely my post would never have been considered relevant enough by our ever-watchful-glorious-admins to endure on the hallowed virtual vellum of the Sword Dojo. (backpedals off cliff)

**Dwimmerlaik** · 05-11-2002, 00:27

Just so I don't clog up the lovely analysis thread...

After reading this thread, I looked at 3 biographies of Nobunaga, Hideyoshi and Ieyasu respectively all of which claim that the idea behind the palisades came from each of these individuals. Now, are there any reliable accounts of who really deserves the credit? I realise this is a question of lesser importance than kill ratios...hehehe...

**Oda Matsu** · 01-30-2007, 07:12

I cannot speak for the palisades. But the tercio formation of the Iberians was the superior military formation of that day, East or West. Having Catholic military advisors gave Nobunaga a considerable advantage against his adversaries, one that frequently goes unstated. The Jesuits were conspiring to convert Japan to Christianity, and through the Oda clan almost managed it.

That said, the Oda army certainly was beatable. Katsuyori misused his superb mobile force - charging cavalry headlong into a set-piece position was as much a bad idea at Nagashiro as it was at Agincourt. If they had been used to flank and outmaneuver that stationary infantry force, and if cavalry archers had been used to harass the enemy force until it was compelled to move, they could very well have beaten all those ashigaru.

The strategic problem for the Takeda was to pick ground where the superior mobility of the Takeda force could be employed effectively. But Katsuyori was more inclined to force an immediate decision, with predictable results. Nobunaga set a rather obvious trap for him that was fairly easy to avoid, but as Katsuyori wasn't of a mind to even try to avoid it his force was pretty much doomed, regardless of the presence or absence of teppo.

**Grey_Fox** · 01-30-2007, 17:32

I think you're about 4 years too late...

**Samurai Waki** · 01-30-2007, 19:25

talk about reviving a dead thread.

**yesdachi** · 01-31-2007, 05:53

Interesting info on army size - I have been reading the series, Path of the Assassin, and in the 3rd issue Kazuo Koike explains that army size is directly related to the amount of rice that can be produced (duh, any STW fan could tell ya that), but he also includes a formula he used to determine the most accurate army size.
10,000 koku of rice can feed an army of 250 men. As of around the year 1560 Iagawa’s territory produced about one million koku, which factored out would be and army with about 25,000 men.
To determine the most accurate army size one only needs to determine the amount of koku produced and those numbers are probably more accurate than the inflated army numbers.

I am guessing that this battle will be coming up in the next few issues (I cant wait).

As to the 4 year old topic, I think Oda baited Takeda more than we think, not with harsh language

but by acting weak or vulnerable in some areas. One interesting thing about the battle is that it was the first time Japanese gunners were used in a rotating fashion so that rather than a bunch of troops firing twice a minute they were able to have, IIRC, 4 sets of troops all firing twice a minute from the same general position for an extended time, that’s enough lead to decimate an army in no time.

**Kagemusha** · 01-31-2007, 19:53

This is intresting topic indeed. In my opinion the battle of Nagashino Takeda didnt stand much of chance at all. Lets start with forces.Takeda had about 12000 men compared to allied Oda(30000 men) and Tokugawa (8000 men). So the combined Oda/Tokugawa army was over three times stronger. The Odas teppos had a great part on the battle,but like most of the Takeda´s senior retainers and Generals time and time again told to Katsyori, attack against such a superior force was a suicide. Takeda troops were tired from the long siege from Nagashino castle.The terrain was broken so not good for Takeda cavalry and the enemy was entrenched and prepared for an attack behind a river. Actually the Takeda vanguard was able to push into Oda palisade,but terribly weakened by the fire which they had to move forward after crossing Shidarahara river.Also the Northern contingent of Takeda troops under Baba Nobufusa gained high ground.But as the Takeda center collapsed they had to withdraw in order to cover the retreat of the remnants of Takeda. Basicly this battle destroyed Takeda as large power, loosing more then 10000 men and many of their best Generals including: Takeda Nobuzane, Baba Nobufusa, Yamagata Masakage, Naito Masatoyo, Hara Masatane, Sanada Nobutsuna, Sanda Masateru, Kasai Mitsuhide, Wada Narishige, Yonekura Shigetsugu, Atobe Shigemasa.While they still could harass Tokugawa for few years this was the start of the end for Takeda,thanks to Katsyoris decision to challenge an superior enemy on bad conditions.

**Julian the apostate** · 02-01-2007, 03:12

Considering that big of a size advantage, i'm not sure if it'd be possible for an army that badly outnumbered to stand a chance especially with its cavalry nullified by a palisade or spikes. While i think the Takeda heavies considered themselves the equal individually to ten men, the hill would severly disadvantage this. So unless their general was far more capable and able to take some of the advantages in setting and timing that Oda took, i don't think so.

On a side note, the Polish cavalry charging German Tanks, its a myth. They charged and routed i believe some SS infantry and then broke up but did some pretty sever damage when faced with a unit of APCs and mobile infantry. albiet this could be wrong but thats what i read.

**Oleander Ardens** · 02-01-2007, 10:04

Considering that a great part of the tactics and the strategy of Oda revolved around the best use of his gunners, including his use of broken terrain and palisades I don't think that such a victory would have been possible without them. Perhaps he would have chosen a different tactical setting, who knows?

**Tran** · 02-02-2007, 13:41

Considering that this thread has been buried for years, into dust bin of history,

it amazes me people are still interested with it...heck, maybe the OP already know everything he needed to...

but that's just my opinion

**yesdachi** · 02-02-2007, 21:49

Originally Posted by Tran

Considering that this thread has been buried for years, into dust bin of history,

it amazes me people are still interested with it...heck, maybe the OP already know everything he needed to...

but that's just my opinion

This topic was hundreds of years old, but still interesting when the thread was started 4 years ago and will continue to be interesting in 4 years when someone else dusts it off.