Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > Speculative History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Speculative History Speculative History Forum - Alternate History, What If Questions, Pseudo History, and anything outside the boundaries of mainstream historical research


Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old December 15th, 2016, 10:50 AM   #111
Historian
 
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 2,896

Quote:
Originally Posted by Medieval View Post
@ heavenlykaghan

I found this text while researching for the subject, it´s quite interesting, but of course it's just an opinion.

link from 2009

On the accuracy of the teppo (Japanese arquebus) - I, Clausewitz : A Would-be Conqueror's Diary

relevant text



So while japonese arquebuses were definetly one of the best among the asian nations, they weren't better/worse then european ones they were just adapted to japonese style warfare, so suited diferent needs. also the Edo period of peace didn't helped mantaining the "level" although development of firearms still continued.
We are talking about completely different things. The author you cited was talking about the trigger and the stock.
He Langchen said Japanese arquebus was superior because of the superior quality of their gun to withstand heating; this is due to better craftsmanship, not technical devices. A similar reason was given for why Japanese arquebuses were more reliable than Chinese ones:
Zhao Shizhen:
"又有谓先年南方鸟铳,其机与倭铳一般,毕竟不如倭铳之火易发。嗟嗟,此机上毫厘丝忽之差,特造器 用器者, 不肯究心耳。"
"Early years Southern (Chinese) arquebus, its mechanism is the same as Japanese arquebus, but it cannot ignite with the same reliability as the Japanese arquebus. (sigh) slight error in the mechanism (cause it),the gunsmith did not put his heart into it (when he was making the gun)"



The Hayago is a whole different story. Its served as a faster loading device. In European cartridges, one using a ramrod to ram the bullet into the bore and then use the paper cartridge to pour the gunpowder into the bore are separate processes.


In the Japanese cartridge, the bullet and the gunpowder is inserted together with the ramrod in one motion into the bore.

Also, the European cartridge is used to pour a portion of its packed gunpowder into the frying pan. Whereas to insure standardized gunpowder inside the bore, the Japanese used another casket for the frying pan.


Furthermore, considering that the Korean arquebus units were largely modeled on the Japanese, I wouldn't be surprised if they used this device too, but this is just a speculation. We know that "unlike the Chinese make, muskets manufactured in Korea were supposed to have been standardized, under the Supervision of a general ordnance department set up in 1615. Their quality was admired by the Chinese" See: Huang, Ray "The Liao-Tung Campaign of 1619".




Quote:
This is not 100% historical verified fact, althought the use of volley firearms fire by the japonese in the later 1592 Korean invasion is. If you go by that route there are alot of possible use of volly firearms in europe as earlier as 1520 and in China even earlier with more crude guns in this case.
Do you have a source for this? I've cited Parker, one of the most authoritative scholars on this matter, I do not have the primary sources for Nagashino, so if you say he is mistaken, please provide the original source.
Quote:
Regarding Japonese Navy, their artillery firepower was pretty meager, their ships structure, size and weight didn't enabled more then 2 or 3 larger artillery pieces to be mounted in them. Even Korean navy was better in the long range artillery distance. The Japanese even considered employing two portuguese galleons to make for that shortcomings in the Korean Invasion.

Artillery was not decisive on European ships at this date either, at least not heavy ones used to sink ships and I've posted this several times elsewhere:

"Muzzle loading artillery was worked at sea in the sixteenth century in two ways. The gun could either be brought inboard after firing, and the necessary operations carried out within the ship, or they could be left in the run-out position and reloaded outboard. The much more efficient process of allowing a gun's own recoil to bring it inboard under the restraining of a breeding rope was not developed until well into the seventeenth century. Instead it was customary, after firing to unhitch the piece and haul it back manually...
Which of these procedures the Spaniards used in 1588 is not known for certain, but the inefficient design of their gun carriages, with their wide-diameter wheels and long trails, suggests that it would have been impracticable, mainly because of the lack of working space on the gundecks, for the pieces to have been loaded inboard while a ship was closely engaged. On the other hand, it would have been short of suicidal to have attempted outboard loading while a ship was within small-arms range of the enemy. The probability is that once close action was joined most Spanish ships only managed to fire off their previously prepared salvo to any serious effect, after which sustained heavy gunfire ceased."

The Spanish Armada: Revised Edition by Colin Martin, Geoffrey Parker.

In fact, the Spanish armada might have been outgunned by contemporary Sino-Korean ships in guns per tonnage.



In the 130 ships of the armada that invaded England, weighting at 57,868 tons with 2,431 cannons and 27,051 crews. The Spanish armada had an average of 18 cannons per ship and having an average ship weight of about 450 tons. Only 6 ships in the entire fleet carried more than forty cannons. They are; the 46 gun Nuestra Senora del Rosario, 47 gun Santa Ana, and the biggest battleship of the armada, San Francesco with its 52 bronze guns.

Only larger ships in the armada even carried guns heavier than 5 pounders.
According to their estimates,
Of the 314 shots fired by San Juan Bautista de la Esperanza, 41 were 5 pounders, 13 were 3 and 4, and 260 were 2 pounders or less.

And even among the big ships, of the 1640 rounds fired by the nine armada ships for which no detailed records survived, only 175(11 percent) exceeded 9 pounds and none exceeded 20.




On the other hand, according to the late Ming military manual Wu Beizhi, a typical ocean going ship is equipped with 20 Folangji (swivel guns), 10 wan kouchong (anti personal mortars), 100 muskets, and 60 hand cannons.
Qi Jiguang also noted that a larger Ming ship had two 5 pounders. The largest late Ming period Fuchuan was only 300-400 tons.

In comparison we have the contemporary Spanish armada with an average of 450 tons for a ship and only an average of 18 cannons per ship, even the largest Ming period Fuchuan had about twice as much guns per tonnage.


Also, sinking enemy ships were extremely rare even in the 17th century, most ships are damaged to the extent they have to retire but not outright sink to the bottom. For example, in the four days battle, only 4 out of 84 Dutch ships were actually lost (which were destroyed by fire, not by cannon itself) and this is 17th century artillery fire we are talking about, not 16th century boarding based tactics.
For this reason, it is important to note that even though Yi Sunshin was effective in disrupting Japanese supply lines, his tactic was nothing more than hit and fire and at best luring Japanese soldiers into areas for ramming and ambush. Yi could NOT outright engage and sink the Japanese armada into the ocean or prevent the Japanese from landing with their infantry.



Quote:
About the large numbers of mobilization that you present and are constantly being reminded by many in multiple threads here, i already gave an example in this thread (Naval Battle of Diu) to say that isn't always a crushing advantage.
Numbers are always an advantage in battle, how that advantage is utilized by individual generals is the question.

Quote:
The point still is that european military organization and technology of that time (1550 up, including the muslim empires like the Ottomans), were in most cases more effective. That doesn't mean that a full scale invasion of Japan would be possible, like it as been said, to few economical and manpower ressource on that side of the globe to achieve anything meaningful, against a well developed and organized society.
What organization and what technology? The Spanish Tercio was a less effective formation compared to the three line volley fire of Nobunaga as it had deep ranks of pikemen that are not fully utilized for firepower and the Spanish had no more firearms as a percentage of its total force. In 1571, firearms only made up 30% of its force.

(Parker, The Spanish Road..., p.235)

Click the image to open in full size.


Steven Turnbull on the other hand showed that among Shimizu Yoshihiru's force during the Imjin war, 36% were arquebusiers.


European cavalries are even less efficient than continental Asian ones (although Japanese cavalry probably lacked shock power, but heavy lancers was not a Spanish trait), as they did not have trained mounted archers performing more deadly volleys than mounted pistols.
heavenlykaghan is offline  
Remove Ads
Old December 15th, 2016, 12:05 PM   #112

Tulius's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: May 2016
From: Portugal
Posts: 1,117

Quote:
Originally Posted by heavenlykaghan View Post
What organization and what technology? The Spanish Tercio was a less effective formation compared to the three line volley fire of Nobunaga as it had deep ranks of pikemen that are not fully utilized for firepower and the Spanish had no more firearms as a percentage of its total force.
How do we prove the efficiency of two formations that never fought against each other? We can’t say that A is less effective than B. It is speculative or in the best case scenario a result of some mathematical model.

As for the words organization and technology that I understood written by Medieval, I understood as the capacity to project power. Spain had it. Portugal had it. The Ottomans had it. After, in the XVII century, the Dutch, the English and the French also had had it. If Japan had it in the XVI or XVII centuries it never employed it, or when it tried it didn’t succeed it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by heavenlykaghan View Post
In 1571, firearms only made up 30% of its force.
That is precisely the meaning of the word “Tercio”… one third, so theoretically 33,3333…%
Tulius is offline  
Old December 15th, 2016, 01:28 PM   #113
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,750

Yet we must also remember that there are Japanese Ambassadors in Beijing at the time. It was his group who negotiated the end of the Imjin War with the Ming - (while he was under house arrest by the Ming). Who is to say that said Ambassadors might not ask the Ming for aid if the Spanish invaded Japan?

Spain on the other hand had no Allies in the region to ask for aid.
kazeuma is offline  
Old December 15th, 2016, 01:33 PM   #114

Edric Streona's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Feb 2016
From: Japan
Posts: 1,670

Even if we accept the Spanish arquebus is slightly better it is not better enough to matter.
The Japanese can out fire... and as musketry shows volume counts for more with such weapons.. there are more fire armed Japanese and more now armed Japanese and armour will offer no protection against shot.

At best Spain can get 5000-8000 men to Japan... not enough to take a city, maybe a mid-large town. Before they are overwhelmed and captured.
If Spain can get 100 000 troops there then it might be dangerous. But since moving 10 000 men to the English Channel cost half of them their lives we can assume an even longer journey would have higher wastage levels... it's reasonable to assume that to get 100 000 men and 10 000 horses that far you'd need at least double that so you'd need 200 000 men and 40 000 horses. They'd need ships. Which would need crews and supplies. So maybe 5-10 000 ships so I guess 80-100 000 sailors... ever tried keeping a convoy together with no radar or radio? I imagine it's slow and next to impossible so even getting the survivors their in one group takes time.

The distance, time and numbers of technologically close troops makes it impossible. The Japanese are warlike but unlike the Aztecs not interested in prisoners and familiar with horses, foreigners and guns. The Japanese have a sense that all foreigners are barbarians and any warlord siding with them against the Emperor (a god) would be siding with his own destruction (his own troops likely to abandon him in disgust) so at best the Spanish can get are some Chinese/Japanese/Korean pirates. A small number of Low quality badly armed fishermen and thieves does not boost Spain's chances.
Edric Streona is offline  
Old December 15th, 2016, 07:39 PM   #115
Historian
 
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 2,896

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulius View Post
How do we prove the efficiency of two formations that never fought against each other? We can’t say that A is less effective than B. It is speculative or in the best case scenario a result of some mathematical model.
They did fight each other; in the thirty years war, the 6 rank deep-3 line musket linear formation was also adopted by the Swedes, who fought the Tercio and eventually won out; the later lacked offensive firepower as it left large amounts of soldiers being equipped with the pike sitting idle in the back during exchange fire. All subsequent European armies started adopting that formation as a result, including the Spaniards. The countermarch was adopted by all European armies as well, even before they adopted the linear formation, but they used it in practical warfare half a century later than the Japanese.


Quote:
As for the words organization and technology that I understood written by Medieval, I understood as the capacity to project power. Spain had it. Portugal had it. The Ottomans had it. After, in the XVII century, the Dutch, the English and the French also had had it. If Japan had it in the XVI or XVII centuries it never employed it, or when it tried it didn’t succeed it.
I doubt that's what it meant.
I understand organization and technology as the efficiency of the military formations and weapons and Japan was certainly not inferior, if anything their formation was ahead of their time and probably superior to those of Spain. Japan could not project because it was a relatively isolated island nation along with later isolationist policies due to the lack of external competition, if it wasn't for Ming support of Korea, Japan might well have taken it, along with the Ryukyu islands and maybe even ousted the Spanish from the Philipines as Hideyoshi once toyed with the idea.

Quote:
That is precisely the meaning of the word “Tercio”… one third, so theoretically 33,3333…%
That's just a name, later Tercios also had vastly more arquebus units and adopted the linear formation.

Quote:
Even if we accept the Spanish arquebus is slightly better it is not better enough to matter.

Except we don't need to accept this fact. The primary sources I've provided shows Japanese arquebus were probably better at least until the end of the 16th century in both craftsmanship and cartridge. Now the Spanish probably did have better heavy cannons, but one have to note that heavy cannons of the day were very difficult to transport logistically; both on land and on the sea and pertains more to siege warfare.

Last edited by heavenlykaghan; December 15th, 2016 at 07:52 PM.
heavenlykaghan is offline  
Old December 15th, 2016, 07:58 PM   #116

VHS's Avatar
VHS
Viable Human Solutions
 
Joined: Dec 2015
From: Human habitat of Canada
Posts: 2,413

Quote:
Originally Posted by Edric Streona View Post
Even if we accept the Spanish arquebus is slightly better it is not better enough to matter.
The Japanese can out fire... and as musketry shows volume counts for more with such weapons.. there are more fire armed Japanese and more now armed Japanese and armour will offer no protection against shot.

At best Spain can get 5000-8000 men to Japan... not enough to take a city, maybe a mid-large town. Before they are overwhelmed and captured.
If Spain can get 100 000 troops there then it might be dangerous. But since moving 10 000 men to the English Channel cost half of them their lives we can assume an even longer journey would have higher wastage levels... it's reasonable to assume that to get 100 000 men and 10 000 horses that far you'd need at least double that so you'd need 200 000 men and 40 000 horses. They'd need ships. Which would need crews and supplies. So maybe 5-10 000 ships so I guess 80-100 000 sailors... ever tried keeping a convoy together with no radar or radio? I imagine it's slow and next to impossible so even getting the survivors their in one group takes time.

The distance, time and numbers of technologically close troops makes it impossible. The Japanese are warlike but unlike the Aztecs not interested in prisoners and familiar with horses, foreigners and guns. The Japanese have a sense that all foreigners are barbarians and any warlord siding with them against the Emperor (a god) would be siding with his own destruction (his own troops likely to abandon him in disgust) so at best the Spanish can get are some Chinese/Japanese/Korean pirates. A small number of Low quality badly armed fishermen and thieves does not boost Spain's chances.
Some people apparently think that China and Japan were some easy targets like the Americas.
With all the old world diseases, relatively small technological gaps, huge populations, China and Japan won't be easy targets for the Europeans.
Scrabble for China in the Late Qing period? It was when the governmental authority and power was at the lowest ebb.
The Republic of China period was similar.
VHS is offline  
Old December 16th, 2016, 02:36 AM   #117

Tulius's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: May 2016
From: Portugal
Posts: 1,117

A small note in a previous post:

Quote:
Originally Posted by heavenlykaghan View Post
…far larger than the Ottoman and Spanish fleets at Lepanto. In a time when boarding was still the main tactic, such a large number mattered in any naval engagements.
The boarding was much more important in the Mediterranean due to the stronger use of Galleys than in the Indian Ocean or the Pacific, where they were less used.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Edric Streona View Post
At best Spain can get 5000-8000 men to Japan...
In a somewhat plausible scenario, I only can imagine that you are not talking about 5000-8000 Spanish, but Spanish plus “auxiliaries”/“allies”… and there the numbers would be a somewhat difficult number to analyze. One of the usual strategies used deliberately by the Spanish and Portuguese (or I could say by the Europeans) was to support a rival faction. Both in the case of China and Japan those tries were downgraded by their complex societies and mined by the Iberian rivalry, that both Chinese and Japanese had difficulty to understand during the 1580-1640 period, since the Castilian crown and the Portuguese crown had the same king.

Quote:
Originally Posted by heavenlykaghan View Post
They did fight each other; in the thirty years war,
Hummm, sorry… you were talking about Nobunaga:

“The Spanish Tercio was a less effective formation compared to the three line volley fire of Nobunaga”

Quote:
Originally Posted by heavenlykaghan View Post
That's just a name, later Tercios also had vastly more arquebus units and adopted the linear formation.
According to the first post, this thread is about the late XVI century, so it was not just a name. Naturally the scenario will be different in the following centuries with an increment of fire weapons. There were still Tercios today and they don’t use the arquebus anymore.

Quote:
Originally Posted by VHS View Post
Some people apparently think that China and Japan were some easy targets like the Americas.
Unless I am reading wrong some of the posts, I don’t see many people here thinking that. With the moral impetus and ideals that the Spanish arrived to the Far East, if China and Japan were easy targets they would have fall in their hands. The thing is that the Spanish basically secured the Philippines and not much more, precisely because the huge differences between East Asia and America. From their perspective their achievements were huge. Even with quite scarce resources, far away from their bases, with only an insecure connection to Nueva España, they were able to secure, evangelize, and spread the Castilian language in much of what are the Philippines today. No other European country was able to do that in the Area, not previously the Portuguese, neither after the Dutch, French and English. The decline of the Spanish language in Philippines append only during the XX century under the USA rule in favor of the English language. And it is almost the only, or the only, country in Asia with a catholic majority among the Population. That is a direct consequence of the Spanish colonization.

Last edited by Tulius; December 16th, 2016 at 02:41 AM. Reason: Spelling errors...
Tulius is offline  
Old December 16th, 2016, 04:22 AM   #118
Historian
 
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 2,896

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulius View Post
A small note in a previous post:



The boarding was much more important in the Mediterranean due to the stronger use of Galleys than in the Indian Ocean or the Pacific, where they were less used.

My point was very simple; boarding based tactics, not artillery fire, was the dominant Spanish tactics at the time just like they were in Japan. Therefore, one should not overlook the fact that the Japanese navy, when mobilized was much bigger.


Quote:
Hummm, sorry… you were talking about Nobunaga:

“The Spanish Tercio was a less effective formation compared to the three line volley fire of Nobunaga”
You weren't asking for samples of Japanese fighting Spaniards, you were asking how the Japanese formation fared against the Spanish Tercio and said we only have speculations:
This was what you were asking:

Quote:
How do we prove the efficiency of two formations that never fought against each other? We can’t say that A is less effective than B. It is speculative or in the best case scenario a result of some mathematical model.
The Japanese adopted the 3 line linear musket formation as well as the countermarch, that was what the Swedes and subsequent European armies did as well after the thirty years war; because they proved more efficient than the Tercio on the battlefield. Therefore, we do actually have real tested evidence of how these formations fared when pitted against each other.


Quote:
According to the first post, this thread is about the late XVI century, so it was not just a name. Naturally the scenario will be different in the following centuries with an increment of fire weapons. There were still Tercios today and they don’t use the arquebus anymore.
Yes, and I was explaining that Spanish Tercios only had 30% arquebus in the 16th century, just in case people confused it with higher percentage of arquebuses that they used during the thirty years war and after.
heavenlykaghan is offline  
Old December 17th, 2016, 08:29 AM   #119

Tulius's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: May 2016
From: Portugal
Posts: 1,117

Quote:
Originally Posted by heavenlykaghan View Post
My point was very simple; boarding based tactics, not artillery fire, was the dominant Spanish tactics at the time just like they were in Japan. Therefore, one should not overlook the fact that the Japanese navy, when mobilized was much bigger.
Naturally that the Japanese navy was bigger, the Spanish only had a handful of ships in the Far East. My point is that in the Portuguese in the Far East sometimes avoided the boarding because of the numerically inferiority, I am not that familiar with the Spanish sources, but from what I know they were not that much different in navy tactics from the Portuguese, they prefer to gain first supremacy with firing weapons, the boarding would be the final phase of the combat.

Quote:
Originally Posted by heavenlykaghan View Post
You weren't asking for samples of Japanese fighting Spaniards, you were asking how the Japanese formation fared against the Spanish Tercio and said we only have speculations:
There seems to be here some misunderstanding here. You mentioned Nobunaga’s tactics. I commented your mention saying that his (Nobunaga’s) tactics were never used against the Tercio, so we can’t compare. Sorry if I was misleading or lost the meaning in translation. I hope that I was clear now.
Tulius is offline  
Old December 17th, 2016, 04:57 PM   #120

dagul's Avatar
Rabbit of Wormhole
 
Joined: Mar 2012
From: In the bag of ecstatic squirt
Posts: 15,595

Quote:
Originally Posted by VHS View Post
In games, source of the military doesn't matter.
In the real world, co-operation and discipline issues arise when soldiers from different parts of the world come together.
A massive, undisciplined force is not more useful than a smaller, disciplined force.
Don't undermine them fighting as Catholics. If there was the most powerful crusader the world was able to forge it was Spain.
dagul is offline  
Closed Thread

  Historum > Themes in History > Speculative History

Tags
conquest, japan, spanish



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Western conquest of Japan Fernando Perla Asian History 4 September 17th, 2016 03:47 PM
What caused the fall of the Aztec/Maya before the Spanish conquest? BosnianHistorian European History 1 January 8th, 2015 02:54 PM
Spanish conquest of the Americas and the European conquest of Africa CyrusTheGreat European History 3 August 14th, 2014 06:27 PM
The Spanish conquest of Central America Linnaea American History 5 June 15th, 2014 09:43 AM
Japan's conquest of the Ainu and invasion of Hokkaido unity Asian History 111 May 7th, 2014 10:14 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.