Talk:Battle of Nagashino

message: Correct me if I am wrong, but to my best knowledge, the cavalry charge at Battle of Nagashino was a fictional event created much later.  Japan simply did not have the horse breeding that could perform a charge at the time.  The Japanese horses at the time was not much bigger than donkeys in size and speed.  It was until the 1800s was Arabian horses introduced into Japan.  
This was further evident in the Korean war of 1580s when Japanese forces was outmatched in by the Ming Chinese cavalry.
:: You make a very logical and compelling argument. But every history book I've seen speaks of a cavalry charge at Nagashino. The cavalry charge was used not only here (in which case, it could be feasible to have been invented later) but was in fact the specialty of the Takeda family. I certainly do not argue that the native Japanese horses were smaller and slower, and that the way it is more recently portrayed is romanticized. But if you propose that cavalry charges never happened, what about the battle of Mikata ga Hara, or any of the other Takeda battles? LordAmeth 17:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am trying to find the citation right now.  It came from BBS discussion with my friends from Taiwan a few years ago.  The popular history books' reference are drawn from Edo literatures which I am fairly sure are at least a hundred year after the actual event.   In true Asian history recording style the contemporary record was very murky about the actual battle.  The problem at hand was the reference were in Japanese and I don't have them with me at the moment but I would like to bring them in.Centralk 18:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Our discussions concluded that it is almost certain that not only the Takeda forces but of whole Japan at the time, there wasn't a cavalry force capable of charges.  There are multiple reasons.  First is of course the Japanese indiginious horses are not capable of charging.  Second is the economic behind supporting a heavy cavalry and the trainning required.  Nobunaga would be the first warlord to have a regular army if I recalled correctly.  Third reason is really simple.  The horsed samurai were usually officers (loosely using the word) or close vassals of the warlords.  Having them to group up and charge would be the equivalent of having the lieutants and above ranking commanders of an army to make a charge at the forefront of the battle.  It would be a suicide in terms of the breakdown in command and communication, not to mention the prohibitive cost.  Centralk 18:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Very long tred

message: An unpublished manuscript by Dr. Paul Varley (Oda Nobunaga, Guns, and Early Modern Warfare in Japan) that I have here states: The Shinchokoki states that the combined Tokugawa-Oda army had 1000 guns (not 3000 as claimed in the standard version of the battle). The Takeda army attacked in five seperate waves and the "majority" (kahansû) of attackers in each wave were cut down exclusively by gunfire.  There is no mention in the Shinchokoki of the use of any weapons other than guns by the Tokugawa-Oda army.  There is also no mention of the gunners "(firing) in volleys so as to maintain a constant barrage," as Geoffrey Parker puts it in his description of the battle of Nagashino quoted earlier.  The shinchokoki speaks of the Takeda as skillful horsemen and refers to thier use of horses in battle.  But we cannot assume that all or even most of the Takeda attackers were mounted.  In view of the composition of contemporary armies in terms of calvalry and infantry, as already discussed, it seems likely that most of them were on foot. 
So it is apparent that the "common knowledge" version of Nagashino might be wrong (Dr. Varley goes on to state that the "current" version of Nagashino (volley fire and calvalry charges) comes from the Shinchoki (as opposed to the Shinchokoki), which was essentially an edo era romanticized dramatization of the Shinchokoki, and Japanese equivalent of a "best seller", and later historians used it as a source).  Another book worth looking at is "Nobunaga no Sensô" by Masayuki Fujimoto (信長の戦争　『信長公記』に見る戦国軍事学) where he actively challenges all of the "common beliefs" of Oda Nobunaga's battles as glorified accounts written during the Edo period.  He focuses on purely contemporary accounts (after-battle reports and other contemporary correspondence and other sengoku era records).  He mentions (as one example) the difficult Uesugi problems in deploying guns and attempting volley fire at the battle of Osaka castle as partial evidence that the current views of Nagashino could be wrong, as well as the shinchokoki vs. the shinchoki, etc. --Kuuzo 21:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow. Thank you very much for your work, Kuuzo. You want to go ahead and make whatever necessary changes to the article? LordAmeth 11:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the "accepted history" is pretty much as the article is written - maybe a sub-section that mentions that the actual events are in dispute?  --Kuuzo 18:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're interested in writing it, I think it'd be a fine addition to the article. (Of course, we can continue to survive without it.) I leave it up to you. LordAmeth 20:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have too much on my plate right now to put anything together, but I am in a position to contribute research (quotes/citations) for any sengoku related questions anyone may have (I am currently working on a very large research project, so I have a lot of general resources that I can easily flip through), just don't have time for any extra writing right now.  --Kuuzo 21:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nagashino in question

message: According to this article and the one under his own name (which was written in reference to this one, I suspect), Oyamada Nobushige appears to have died at the battle of Nagashino; however, he apparently got better, as he was the commander of the stronghold of Iwadono who refused Katsuyori entry in 1582, leading to the latter's suicide and the final defeat of the Takeda by Nobunaga and Ieyasu. According to Stephen Turnbull in the Samurai Sourcebook, Nobushige did indeed hold Iwadono castle, and while he is mentioned as having *fought* at Nagashino he isn't referred to as having *died* there (Turnbull isn't specific as to which of the 'Twenty-four Generals' did). I'd say this article, and the one on Nobushige, need to be fixed- unless there are sources supporting their version, in which case the Battle of Temmokuzan article needs to be altered... 172.188.214.14 12:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the Sengoku Jinmei Jiten (戦国人名辞典), Oyamada Nobushige was killed by Nobunaga in the third month of 1582, even though he assisted Nobunaga in the destruction of the Takeda clan. While I hold suspect pretty much anything ST has ever written, the Sengoku Jinmei Jiten is considered authoritative.  --Kuuzo 20:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oyamada Nobushige 

message: http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E9%95%B7%E7%AF%A0%E3%81%AE%E6%88%A6%E3%81%84#.E6.AD.A6.E7.94.B0.E9.A8.8E.E9.A6.AC.E8.BB.8D.E5.9B.A3.E3.81.AF.E5.AE.9F.E5.9C.A8.E3.81.97.E3.81.9F.E3.81.AE.E3.81.8B
Over 90% of the Takeda Arm force are footman.  Consider the Takedas were outnumbered two to one in this  battle, a charge of less than 3000 riders against a well fortifid and entrenched enemy seems rather ridiculus.
Also mentioned in the article, the cavalry's main advantage was its mobility, not its ability to shock.Centralk 10:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's reasonable to assume calvalry "charges", unfortunately the Shinchokoki doesn't really specify a calvalry assault - it just give the names of the generals that lead each charge. Each one is written pretty much the same.  To paraphrase: "Yamagata Masakage attacked, but was forced back under a hail of gunfire.  He was followed by Takeda Nobukado.  The (oda) ashigaru fell back, and more guns were fired. Nobukado was hit and forced to fall back." and so on.  It does mention that Obata's forces were mounted, but it doesn't mention that about most of the other generals, which could be taken to mean that most weren't calvalry, or the author could have assumed that the reader knew they were all mounted and didn't see any reason to mention it. It's pretty inconclusive.  --Kuuzo 07:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  From the Japanese Wiki 

message: Which date is correct - 28th or 29th? Japanese wiki gives 29th, while most of European - 28th....--Alex Kov 11:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date 

message: There is a lot of mention of rifles and riflemen here. I thought that most of the guns of that period were smoothbore weapons (like the arquebus). Is this just used as a generic term to mean firearms? If so it could do with a rewrite to correct this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bunker fox (talk • contribs) 20:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not know that much about firearms, and if someone who knows better thinks it needs correcting, that's fine with me. I have to admit, I don't even remember if it would have been me who wrote "rifles", but if it was, I intended it not as a description of a specific type of weapon (which they obviously did not have at the time), but as a very general, broad term. They weren't handguns or pistols (or machine guns, artillery, bazookas, shotguns, etc.), thus they were rifles. Two-handed, versus one-handed. That's all. Does this need correcting, or is "rifle" good enough as a broad term that can incorporate matchlock rifles (as opposed to matchlock pistols)? LordAmeth 10:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Never mind, I just changed it. Bunker fox 12:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool. I like it better this way anyway. Thanks! LordAmeth 13:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rifles 

message: The Mongols rode small, primitive shaggy horses and conquered most of Eurasia, making mincemeat of cavalry forces that rode big beautiful horses. Erudil 17:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hores are not depended on size but what they are bred to do. Mongolian horses were bred to have high speed and endurance, suited for horse archers swarming. That is the tactic they conquered the world with. When they went head on head and launched cavalry charges against the big and heavy Arabic "chargers" of the Middle East and European knights that were bred specifically to charge, the Mongols got the worst of it. They did not beat these heavy cavalry with heavy cavalry charge of their own, they did so by luring them into long pursuits, weakening them with endless shower of arrows, breaking up their formation and tiring their chargers (which tire easily), and then and only then would then turn around and mount fresh horses and charge. The Takeda cavalry by traditional accounts were spear-sword cavalry that was supposed to charge the enemy. Ponies would not have been very good at this, especially ones bred for farm work.ParallelPain (talk) 19:54, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Horses

message: People need to stop using this guy as the main source (or the only source). I'm blessed that I can read Japanese, Chinese, and English and I can tell Turnbull just takes traditional narratives of East Asian warfare and face value without digging deeper for contemporary accounts and using logical deduction to produce what is actually plausible. He's equivalent would be if an Eastern historian read Herotodus and took him in face value and said the Persians numbered 2million. He does not consult with modern native historians of the subject, but take these tales and just try to construct something "logical" from it. His arguement for the existence and innovation of Takeda cavalry does not stand up at all. First, the Sengoku Era the yari (which is just a polearm with a metal blade of any kind, not a pike) was the main weapon and there is no source or reason to suggest Shingen refitted his cavalry with spears for charge when it could very well have been their main weapon from before the era. Heck whether or not an all-cavalry division of the army existed is in question itself, especially when no contemporary source ever gave such a view anywhere. And to say that the main weapon of the majority of the combatants, the Ashigaru, are the yari must mean they had to face strong cavalry is just bullshit. A spear is much easier to produce than a sword or bow, takes much less time to train for a person to be competent at it, and is much more suited to close quarters fighting in formation than the two-handed katana, being faster in attack and with a longer reach. Heck the main weapon of the Samurai was yari, with the swords acting as sidearms. That spears are good against cavalry is just one of its many advantages, and just because an army's main armament is the spear does that mean their enemy have high quality charging cavalry. The early Greek Argos hoplite fought with spear, and the Greek cavalry of the time were crap.ParallelPain (talk) 19:54, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Turnbull and stuff

message: So according to the WP article on the Battle of Mikatagahara Tokugawa was outnumbered three to one, and he was facing one of the most powerful warlords of the era. Then, in less than one day, he was able to drive out the attacking force and hold the castle they had come to take. How exactly is this a defeat for Tokugawa? I have noticed a tendency to downplay the life and abilities of Tokugawa in post Meiji Restoration histories, I think this article might also be suffering from that bias. Colincbn (talk) 05:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Defeat?

message: I don't think this section adds anything to the article, and in fact seems to muddy the waters.  Nearly every standard account in English is unanimous.  Everything in the "dispute" section I think is WP's definition of "original research" - until something comes along in English that really does dispute the standard story, I think we should remove this section - most of it is uncited as well.  What does everyone think? Sgtkabuki (talk) 23:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. There are a lot of unsubstantiated claims in this article.  Looks like someone already went ahead and terminated that section anyway. I think there is still more fat that can be cut out.  BradTraylor (talk) 03:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I was interrupted before I could post here. I deleted the section, but I do think it is worth putting in some info about the difference between Japanese horses of the time and the modern Arabian and European thoroughbreds used in movies (properly referenced of course). Colincbn (talk) 03:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, even the "the effects" section is really bad - it doesn't actually contain any facts at all, just claims and the writer's impression. I think it should probably be removed until some sort of source could be used.  Per Sgtkabuki's mention of original research, that section really smacks of it.  I'm going to go ahead and remove it, it really doesn't add any facts to the article as far as I can tell. Someone please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. BradTraylor (talk) 05:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Dispute

message: https://books.google.ca/books?id=FFGICwAAQBAJ&pg=PT133&dq=stephen+turnbull+nagashino+1000&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiH9Jr29OHNAhVHxmMKHYq0AjEQ6AEIMjAE#v=onepage&q=stephen%20turnbull%20nagashino%201000&f=false
Stephen Turnbull has got around to publishing the latest research finally.
1000 guns. No rotating fire. Now just need to edit it in.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by ParallelPain (talk • contribs) 17:53, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: New Sources