Arsenal of Japanese samurai (first part)

86
Everyone knows that weapons Japanese samurai was a sword. But did they fight only with swords? It will probably be interesting to get acquainted with their arsenal in detail in order to better understand the traditions of the ancient Japanese military art.

Let's start by comparing the arsenal of Japanese samurai with the arsenal of a medieval knight from Western Europe. The difference in the quantity and quality of their samples will immediately be evident. Arsenal samurai first of all will be much richer. In addition, many types of weapons will be virtually incomparable with European ones. In addition, what we consider to be truth is in fact very often just another myth. For example, everyone said that the sword is a “samurai soul” because they wrote about it more than once. However, was he their main weapon, and if “yes”, was it always like that? Here is a knight's sword - yes, indeed, the symbol of chivalry was always, but with a samurai sword everything is far from being so unequivocal.



Firstly, it is not a sword, but a saber. We just traditionally call the samurai blade a sword. And secondly, he was far from always his main weapon! And here it is best to remember ... the legendary musketeers of Alexander Dumas! They were called so because their main weapon was a heavy wick musket. However, the heroes of the novel use it except during the defense of the bastion of Saint-Gervais. In the remaining chapters of the novel, they are costing swords. This is understandable. After all, it was the sword, and then its lite version - the sword, which in Europe were symbols of chivalry and belonging to the nobility. Moreover, even a peasant could wear a sword in Europe. Bought - and wear! But in order to own it, it was necessary to study for a long time! And only noblemen could afford it, but not peasants. But the musketeers did not fight with swords, and the situation with the Japanese samurai was exactly the same. The sword among them became especially popular in the years ... of the world, that is, in the Edo era, after 1600, when it turned from a military weapon into a symbol of the samurai class. There was no one to fight the samurai, work was below their dignity, so they took up the fact that they began to sharpen their fencing art, to open fencing schools - in one word to cultivate the art of antiquity and to promote it in every way. In real combat, samurai, of course, also used swords, but at first they did it only as a last resort, and before that they used a bow!

Arsenal of Japanese samurai (first part)
Like the French nobility, samurai did not part with their swords in the days of peace and in the days of war, and even looked at them with an oblique glance as an insult! Woodcut Utagawa Kunisada (1786 - 1865).



In ancient Japanese poems it was said: “Bow and arrows! Only they are the happiness of the whole country a stronghold! ”And these lines clearly show how important it was for the Japanese to be kyudo - the art of archery. Only a notable warrior in ancient Japan could become an archer. His name was yumi-tory - “bow holder”. The bow - yumi and the arrow I - were Japanese sacred weapons, and the expression "yumiya-no miti" ("the path of the bow and arrow") was synonymous with the word "bushido" and meant the same thing - "the path of the samurai." Even the purely peaceful expression "samurai family" and then literally when translating it from Japanese means "family of bows and arrows", and the Chinese in their chronicles called the Japanese "Big bow".


A fragment of the scroll "Heiji no Ran" depicts a rider in a white o-war, armed with a bow and a sword. Scroll created at the beginning of the XIV century.


In “Heike Monogatari” (“The Tale of Heike”), the famous Japanese military chronicles of the XIV century, for example, it is reported as in the 1185 year, during the battle of Yashima, the commander Minamoto-no Kuro Yoshitsune (1159 - 1189) fought desperately to return the bow, which he accidentally dropped into the water. The warriors of the enemy tried to knock him out of the saddle, his own warriors begged to forget about such trifles, but he fearlessly fought with the first, and did not pay attention to the second. He took out the bow, but his veterans began to openly resent such recklessness: “It was terrible, sir. Your bow can cost a thousand, ten thousand gold, but is it worth it to put your life at risk? ”

To which Yoshitsune replied: “The point is not that I did not want to part with my bow. If I had a bow, like the bow of my uncle Tametomo, which only two or even three people could pull, I might even have deliberately left it to the enemy. But my bow is bad. If the enemies found out that it was I who owned them, they would laugh at me: “Look, and this is the bow of the commander Minamoto Kuro Yoshitsune!” I would not want that. Therefore, I risked my life to bring him back. ”

In "Hogan Monogatari" ("The Legend of Hogan Era"), which tells about the military operations of 1156 of the year, Tametomo (1149 - 1170), Uncle Yoshitsune, is said to be an archer so strong that the enemies, taking him prisoner, beat him chisel hands from joints to make it impossible to shoot a bow in the future. The title of "archer" was an honorary title for any distinguished samurai, even when a sword and a spear replaced the bow. For example, commander Imagawa Yoshimoto (1519 - 1560) received the nickname of "The First Archer of the Eastern Sea".

The Japanese made their bows from bamboo, while the difference from the bows of other nations, who also used bamboo for this, was very large and at the same time asymmetric, as it was considered that it would be more convenient for the warrior to aim and shoot. And such a bow was especially convenient for shooting from a horse. Yumi is usually longer than the English “long bows”, as it often reaches the 2,5 meter of length. There are cases that were bows and even longer. So, at the legendary archer Minamoto (1139 - 1170) the bow had a length of 280, see. Sometimes the bows were made so strong that they couldn’t be pulled by one person. For example, Yumi, destined for sea battles, had to pull seven people at once. Modern Japanese onions, as in ancient times, are made of bamboo, various wood and rattan fibers. The usual distance of the aimed shot is 60 meters, well, in the hands of the master, such a weapon can send an arrow to 120 meters. On some bows (at one of the ends), the Japanese reinforced the tips, as if at spears, which allowed this type of weapon, which was called yumi-yari ("bow-spear"), to combine the functions of a bow and spear.


Generic boom and case for her.


Arrow shafts were made from polished bamboo or willow, and plumage - from feathers. The tip of the yadziri was often a true work of art. Special blacksmiths made them, and they often signed their tips. Their forms could be different, for example, forked moon-shaped tips were very popular. Each samurai in his quiver had a special “patrimonial arrow” on which his name was written. According to her, the one killed on the battlefield was recognized in the same way as in Europe it was done by the coat of arms on the shield, and the winner took it as a trophy. Tsuru - bow string - was made from plant fibers and waxed. Each archer had with him also a spare string - a gen, which was placed in a quiver or wound on a special ring-coil tsurumaki, which hung on a belt.


Katakura Kadethune is a samurai in black armor with an ёroy and with the same black bow with a characteristic braid. On the belt reel for spare bowstrings. The back flag of Sasimono depicts a Buddhist bell. City Museum Sendai.


Much kyudo, according to European concepts, lies beyond the framework of a rational understanding of reality and is inaccessible to a person with a western mentality. For example, it is still believed that the shooter in this half-mystical art plays only the role of an intermediary, and the shot itself is carried out, as it were, without its direct participation. At the same time, the shot itself was divided into four stages: greeting, preparation for aiming, aiming and launching an arrow (the latter could be made while standing, sitting, from the knee). A samurai could shoot, even sitting astride a horse, and not from a stationary position, but at full gallop, like the ancient Scythians, the Mongols and the North American Indians!


Tribal arrow (left) and two guards tsuba right.


According to the rules, a bushy warrior received an arrow and a bow from his squire, got up from his place and, taking the appropriate posture, demonstrating his dignity and complete self-control. At the same time, it was necessary to breathe in a certain way than to achieve “peace of mind and body” (dojikuri) and readiness for a shot (jugumae). Then the shooter became to the target with his left shoulder, with a bow in his left hand. The legs were supposed to be placed on the length of the arrow, after which the arrow was put on the string and held it with your fingers. Meanwhile, relaxing the muscles in his arms and chest, the samurai raised his bow over his head, and stretched the string. Breathing at that moment needed a stomach, which allowed the muscles to relax. Then he made the shot himself - hanare. The samurai had to concentrate all his physical and mental strength on the “great goal”, striving for the same goal - to unite with the deity, but not at all on the desire to hit the target and not on the target itself. Having made a shot, the shooter then lowered the bow and calmly walked to his place.


Gloves for archery.


Over time, Yumi turned from a weapon of a noble rider into a weapon of a simple infantryman, but even then he did not lose respect for himself. Even the appearance of firearms did not diminish its value, since the bow was faster and more reliable than the primitive arquebus charging from the barrel. The Japanese knew crossbows, including Chinese, multi-charge doku, but they did not receive much distribution in their country.

By the way, horses and riders were specially trained in the ability to cross the river with a rapid flow, and they also had to shoot a bow! Therefore, the onions were varnished (usually black) and also stained. Short bows, similar to Mongolian, were also well-known to the Japanese, and they used them, but it was difficult because the Buddhists in Japan were disgusted with things like the hooves, veins and horns of dead animals and could not touch them, and without this they could make a short but rather powerful bow is simply impossible.

But in Western Europe, the feudal lords did not recognize bow for military weapons. Already the ancient Greeks considered the bow a weapon of a coward, and the Romans called it "insidious and childish." Charlemagne demanded that his warriors wear a bow, issued appropriate capitularies (decrees), but did not succeed much in this! Sports equipment for training muscles - yes, a hunting weapon - to get food in the forest, combining a pleasant time with a useful thing - yes, but fight with a bow in his hands against other knights like himself - yes God forbid! Moreover, bows and crossbows were used in European armies, but ... they recruited commoners for this: in England, the yeoman peasants, in France, the Genoese crossbowmen, and in Byzantium and the Crusader states in Palestine, Turkopule Muslims. That is, in Europe, the main weapon of the knight was originally a double-edged sword, and the bow was considered an unworthy weapon of a noble warrior. Moreover, archer riders in the European armies were forbidden to shoot from a horse. From a noble animal, which was considered a horse, it was necessary to first go, and only after that, take up the bow! In Japan, on the contrary, it was the bow from the very beginning that was the weapon of noble warriors, and the sword served for self-defense in close combat. And only when the wars in Japan stopped, and archery by and large lost all meaning, the sword in the first place in the samurai’s arsenal, in essence, had become by this time an analogue of the European sword. Of course, not by his combat characteristics, but by the role he played in the then Japanese society.

And with the spears it was about the same! Why does a warrior need a spear when a powerful and long-range bow is at his service ?! But when spears in Japan became a popular weapon, their types became so numerous that it is simply amazing. Although, unlike Western knights who used spears from the very beginning of their storiesIn Japan, they received only in the middle of the XIV century, when the infantry began to use them against samurai horsemen.


Senzaki Yagoro Noriyasu is one of 47's loyal ronin, running with a spear in his hand. Woodcut Utagawa Kuniyoshi (1798 - 1861)


The length of the Japanese infantry's javelin jari could be from 1,5 to 6,5 m. Usually it was a spear with a double-edged tip ho, however, spears are known even with several points, with hooks and moonlike blades attached to the tip and diverted from it to the side.


The rarest spear of Kuradasi Jari, the blacksmith Mumei. Edo Era, roughly 1670 g. Next to it is a case of the corresponding form.


Using the spear of Yari, the samurai struck a blow with his right hand, trying to pierce the enemy's armor, and with the left simply held his shaft. Therefore, it was always varnished, and the smooth surface made it easy to rotate in the palms. Then, when the long yari appeared, which became a weapon against the cavalry, they began to be used more as a strike weapon. These spears were usually armed with foot soldiers of ashigaru, resembling an ancient Macedonian phalanx with long peaks lined up one to one.


The tip of the spear Yari and case for him.

[Center]
Well, if the spear-head broke, it was not thrown away, but was turned into such an elegant dagger tanto-yari.


Forms of tips differed, as well as their length, of which the longest reached 1 m. In the middle of the Sengoku period, the yar trek was lengthened to 4 m, but it was more convenient for the riders to be controlled by spears with short shafts, and the longest jar remained the guns of the ashigaru infantrymen. Another interesting type of weapons-type weapon forks was sasumat sodze garam or foomata-yari with a metal tip like a slingshot, sharpened from the inside. She was often used by samurai policemen to detain intruders armed with a sword.


Sasumata Sodze Garama


Invented in Japan and something like a garden trident ripper and called kumade ("bear's paw"). On his images one can often see a chain wrapped around a pole, which must be attached to the wrist or to the armor, so that it is not lost in battle. This gun wonder was used in the storming of locks, during boarding, but in a field battle with its help it was possible to hook the enemy warrior by the horns-kuvagata on the helmet or on the cords on the armor and pull it off the horse or wall. Another variant of the “bear paw” was a club with wide open fingers, entirely made of metal!


Mace coumade is a bright fusion of two styles of Chinese and Japanese island weapons.


The police also used sode-garami (“tangled sleeve”), a weapon with hooks extending to the sides of the pole, with which they hooked onto the sleeves of the criminal so that he could not use his weapon. The way to work with him is simple to genius. It is enough to get close to the enemy and poke him with a tip with sode-garas (it doesn't matter if he is injured or not!), So that his hooks with the ends bent like fishing hooks stick his body.


Tip sode-garami.


It was precisely in this way that the murderers, robbers and riotous revelers were captured in the time of Edo. Well, in battle, they tried to hook the enemy with lacing on their armor and pull them off the horse to the ground. So the presence of a large number of cords on Japanese armor was a double-edged sword. In certain cases, for their owner it was simply deadly! On the navy they also used something similar to him - the uti-kagi boarding hook.

Figure A. Shepsa. The author expresses gratitude to the company "Antiques Japan" for the materials provided.
86 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +5
    5 May 2015 06: 46
    Thank you for the article. For me, after reading books about the weapons of the samurai, it was a revelation to me that the main weapon of the samurai was a bow and spear, so the stamp on the sword overshadowed all other weapons. The Japanese, as an extremely warlike nation, created magnificent examples of knives, in almost all its forms. I hope that there will be a whole series of articles and readers will be able to enjoy all the sophistication of Japanese arsenals.
    1. +7
      5 May 2015 07: 02
      Will be! Do not worry!
      1. +2
        5 May 2015 13: 43
        I noticed a very interesting moment! 2 picture from bottom to top, the image of the swastia Kolovrat. However, swastions are found throughout the earth.
    2. +3
      5 May 2015 15: 06
      A real war, albeit a very short one, but merciless, dishonorable and romantic, the Japanese first saw, in my opinion, when the Mongols came to them. They had a completely different tactic. Clouds of arrows and catapult fire, heavy cavalry, false retreat, lasso pulling, hooks, armor-piercing arrowheads and other "delights", only when they were sure of victory and decided to show off "your best warrior against mine", as Chelubey against Peresvet, and so stupidly they shot arrows at a stupid daredevil who came out to fight with a sword. I remember a joke:

      Chapaev and Petka are walking around Beijing. Shaolin monks, the very ones who possess martial arts, go to the meeting. One of the monks, approaching, pushed Chapaev on the shoulder, Vasily Ivanovich to him - well, let's go around the corner to "talk", both left, after a while Vasily Ivanovich returns, wipes his sword on his shoulder and says: - Strange eccentric, - Well , someone with a bare heel climbs a checker!
      1. -5
        6 May 2015 01: 22
        In the article some nonsense.
        To compare a bow, a spear and a sword is how to compare a Kalash, a pm and a knife.

        Brilliant Japanese terminology to?

        Nothing. Minus.
  2. +4
    5 May 2015 07: 02
    the ritual dagger is kusungobu, that’s the main weapon of the samurai ... (in the picture, Toyama Tokanawa, makes them hara-kiri ..) Yes
  3. Dudu
    +1
    5 May 2015 07: 48
    Good article. But the sword for the samurai is not only a weapon but also the embodiment of a military spirit. Therefore, it was used in appropriate situations. BUT on the battlefields, the bow played a limited role, and melee weapons were the main ones. In general, the tactics of the samurai was based on a surprise attack and ambush.
  4. +12
    5 May 2015 09: 03
    Paying tribute to the author of the article for his knowledge and admiration for the Japanese martial art, I cannot but note that the same author writes some fables that the bow was a "despicable" weapon in Western civilization. This is absolute nonsense! In the same ancient Hellas, possession of a bow was considered as obligatory as other types of weapons and was no less honorable. In ancient Rome, archers were no less obligatory on the battlefield, but they were secondary troops, but not because of their "wretchedness" or "low origin", but because the use of the bow required both hands and the archer could not wear a heavy shield - he needs there was protection in the form of another soldier covering him with a shield, which was an irrational expenditure of soldiers on a long campaign. In the era of chivalry, the bow remained the main lethal weapon on the battlefield, inflicting monstrous losses on the opposing sides (one battle at Cressy, which is worth it!), But again the bow was used by lightly armed infantry not because its possession was a "plebeian affair" as the author tries to convince us , and for the same reason that I gave above, to shoot from a bow of those times was very difficult and required unthinkable endurance, especially if the battle was protracted, and it was simply inconvenient for knights to shoot from a bow in heavy armor, since the knights were often difficult to hold on a horse in his heavy armor, what dexterity and accuracy can be when shooting from a bow, and even using both hands! That is why only practically unprotected, lightly armed dexterous nomads succeeded in archery, and the same Mongols wiped out "half the world with their arrows, defeating many armies. The bow in the Middle Ages in European armies was given priority as a weapon that inflicted maximum harm on the enemy at a distance , but they also understood his shortcomings, namely: a tired archer could not withstand a heavily armed enemy in close combat with his light sword and due to the lack of armor and demanded cover from other soldiers, therefore, when the enemy approached, they were taken to the second line of defense from where they did not cease to shower the enemy with arrows at every opportunity, if the enemy approached, then the archers were again withdrawn, etc. In addition, during prolonged combat, especially in a damp climate, the bow string quickly lost its elastic properties and required replacement, which caused either hitch in shooting , especially unpleasant in threatening moments of the battle, or completely made archers a demon a helping crowd. The importance of the bow in service with European armies is also emphasized by the fact that in England it was officially in service even at the beginning of the 18th century! And in Russia, "native" troops had it in service in the 19th century! The memories of the soldiers of the Napoleonic army are full of mentions of bloody skirmishes with the "Russian Mongols" and their terrible bows.
    1. avt
      +2
      5 May 2015 09: 32
      Quote: Monster_Fat
      e archers were no less obligatory on the battlefield, but they were secondary troops, but not because of their "wretchedness" or "low origin",

      good If you look at the old images of the Russian noble cavalry - every second sagaidak is truncated.
      1. 0
        5 May 2015 19: 54
        "Wild barbarians", what can you take from them ... laughing
    2. +2
      5 May 2015 10: 38
      Damn, I'm delighted, Yes, What a difference.
      About bows, everything is clear and good there, to the very point. Or are you accustomed to beating a long shaft on a horse, for a show and for the great pleasure of the ladies. Or you are a real hard worker of war and put the same knights on the ground. At the same time, in peacetime, you can also shoot birds for food, which, of course, cannot be deafened.
      But I was delighted - long sentences. Everyone was waiting for the verb to appear at the end.
      Those. I did not see the face of the foremother of Germanic languages.
      I hope to wait another month, mon ami.
      ...
      ..
      And to the author, and kalibr, in his person, thanks for the extremely interesting material.
      I read it with great pleasure. I myself am somehow not particularly fond of samurai. Its closer.
      I will wait again.
    3. +2
      5 May 2015 17: 58
      Here you are wrong. It has already been proven that in the West there was a tradition not to use a bow to a noble person against the same. I have a number of articles about this in scientific journals, in "History Illustrated", for example. Available in a number of scientific monographs. A large source analysis has been carried out, which proves this. Today, this point of view is shared by almost all English-speaking historians, and ours, at least, do not mind. Yes, they used the bow (as well as poison!), But it was never considered a noble weapon in Europe. I will not argue now, it will just be detailed later. article on the materials of my doctoral dissertation.
      1. 0
        2 October 2016 13: 23
        Your materials are still dope, judging by the books. And all who at least a little in the subject with the name Shpakovsky spit. Bringing links to sources from which you draw is simply interesting.
        I can only suspect a freak like Cardini.
        1. 0
          25 January 2023 10: 47
          Quote: Flamethrower
          And everyone who is at least a little in the subject with a surname

          The same ... as ... the author of the comment.
    4. +1
      5 May 2015 23: 17
      The compound bow-weapon is expensive and difficult to manufacture, it was far from accessible to everyone ... the British had it easier, yew ..... in the wagon train they carried whole armfuls .... and as for the shooting riders, then hello to the stirrups (it’s thought to have been invented Arabs, but disputes continue, the main argument-stirrups were the first wooden, in the excavations were not preserved ...))))
      1. 0
        2 October 2016 13: 21
        version that they came up with the Arabs were not. India and China are competing.
        why - there is not the slightest mention of wooden stirrups and no images. Maybe they were from invisible material?
    5. 0
      2 October 2016 13: 38
      The battle of the chair, if anything, was won in hand-to-hand combat. The monstrously deadly shelling has never been able to thwart the attack that goes up the sloping hillside.

      The knights of the 14th century had armor no heavier than the heavy horsemen of the Parthians, Arabs, Byzantines, Russians, Turks, etc., and even the Japanese, who nevertheless fired from the bow.
      Many knights of that time from armor had only chain mail, weighing 12-14 kg.

      The heavy armor of the knights weighed 25-35 kg maximum and the knights could move in them easily and freely, Busiko generally did somersaults.

      Your ignorance is monstrous. Light riders archers are not light because armor interferes, but because they were recruited from poor pastoralists who cannot buy normal weapons.
      It is strange what happened to the light riders with such deadly weapons when they were driven out of China, Khorezm, Russia? Maybe the reason is not in archers, but in socio-political processes.

      Your nonsense is unlimited, but it breaks into a simple argument: the arrows did not pierce the armor and did not break the shields. Read Anthony Klipsom A Folks in the book gives examples of chain mail tested with a large bow. A contemporary of Saint-Remy writes that the English arrows bounced off armor or broke about them. And it was about leather armor !. In battles where archers couldn’t sit behind the picket fence, the power of their weapons disappeared somewhere and they were held by Ore, Nogent sur Seine, Pate, Formigny, Verneuil, Granson, etc. Moreover, it is directly indicated: the pavazes of the French were so strong, etc.
  5. +2
    5 May 2015 09: 09
    The Japanese have been brewing in their juice for thousands of years, which is why they have so many perversions in the military sphere. While both Europe and the rest of the world have accumulated the achievements of the military thought of thousands of peoples ...
    This is all funny, of course, but it's hard to talk about the effectiveness of such sode-garas and kumade. IMHO.
    1. +2
      5 May 2015 18: 02
      It was not possible to adequately copy the picture as using a sode-garam to capture the criminal. Such a banal watercolor - well, they say, as it should. That is, it was spread like our rubber truncheon and worked to ...
    2. 0
      13 May 2015 13: 37
      about exceptional accumulation in europe - it's just a false stereotype.
      further, you simply did not read carefully - sode garas are more police weapons, a special device to neutralize, not kill. Since, unlike the Russians, who trained to drill without weapons or the Europeans, who did not take a dagger with them, the buoys in Japan, often ronin, bandits or samurai, had much more serious weapons, they were required to counter them appropriate means - on the pole, so that the sword does not reach and easy to use.
    3. 0
      2 October 2016 13: 18
      what thousands ??? the Japanese came to the islands in - 6 centuries of our era.
      About thousands of nations, too, nonsense. And all the military affairs of the era were the same everywhere.
  6. +2
    5 May 2015 10: 36
    For example, everyone knows that the sword is “the soul of a samurai”, because they wrote about it more than once. However, was he their main weapon, and if so, was it always that way? Here is a sword of a knight - yes, indeed, it has always been a symbol of chivalry, but with a samurai sword everything is far from so simple.

    I didn’t understand a bit here - I’m far from an expert on medievalism and chivalry, but I had to read that the sword was almost never the knight’s main weapon. What am I wrong about?
    1. +7
      5 May 2015 11: 08
      The sword is not the main one in a mass battle.
      Knights broke broke with infantry, with commoners. At first - noble spears, necessarily - to break. To break a spear, there is no high above. If the squire has not yet been finished, commoners, then he will give another spear.
      This is if just knightly squads fight.
      But they will not give a spear; against armor, a sword is not a weapon. Shotguns are needed, flails, morgensterns, maces. The ax will do, because the mass is larger. And if minted, it’s so great.
      The sword is a little expensive for cutting. Lighter than the rest. It's easier to break, blunt.
      If there’s nothing left at all, then we’ll get it.
      ...
      But in the front hall, among the nobles and ladies, a knight with a spear would look like a village fool with a computer.
      In a decent society - a decent sword. Beautifully finished, preferably not very heavy.
      And the whole trick.
      1. GDP
        0
        5 May 2015 16: 26
        +100500
        ax, mace, hand - this is the real weapon of a noble knight :)
      2. +1
        5 May 2015 21: 55
        Thank you for the clarification! hi I imagined it that way.
    2. +3
      5 May 2015 11: 54
      You're right. The main weapon of the knight was lance spear.
      The main weapons of the infantryman were spear, spade, halberd, bow, crossbow, etc.
      The sword was an auxiliary weapon.

      Also, at least since the Crusades, knights were accompanied by horse archers.
      1. 0
        5 May 2015 20: 34
        The sword was an auxiliary weapon.
        Not certainly in that way. The sword was on a par with the spear as the main weapon. But not the weapon of the first blow. You can beat Lance only at speed. But the cavalry spear is fragile and when hit by a serious obstacle, with a large force of impact, it must break. If it is made indestructibly strong, then the force of bestowal upon such a strike can be as destructive for the attacker as it is for the victim.
        in case of success of the attack, the knight swept through the battle formation of the enemy and with a high probability remained with a fragment of a spear in his hands (especially if the enemy was the same knight). In this case, he had nowhere to take a new spear. This is where the sword came into play. smile As well as maces, klevets, hatchets and other options. There is someone who preferred that. Some knights, before throwing a piece of spear, fought them like a club. Fortunately, the enemy infantry was far from always well-dressed.
        1. 0
          2 October 2016 13: 15
          Only tournament spears were fragile. The battle was from ash, and with a strong blow, it either pierced the enemy or slipped away. It rushed through the battle order? Are you out of your mind? The knights of the first line exchanged spear strikes with opponents of the first line, and then, wedged between two opponents, they pulled out short weapons and chopped with the second and further line.
    3. The comment was deleted.
    4. 0
      5 May 2015 18: 03
      The sword was a symbol of chivalry, hence the custom of putting power in the hilt and kissing it!
      1. +1
        7 May 2015 07: 20
        Symbols of chivalry (knightly dignity): sword, belt, spurs.
        In principle, lance-lance too. But unlike the first three, due to its size it was impossible to carry it with you everywhere, demonstrating its nobility. wassat
    5. 0
      13 May 2015 13: 40
      a sword is rather a dueling attribute or a punitive weapon. Against seriously protected warriors, except perhaps his heavy modifications — zweichenders, claymore, various weighted one and a half batters — were suitable.
      1. 0
        2 October 2016 13: 10
        open fencing books of 14-16 centuries and do not say nonsense anymore.
  7. +3
    5 May 2015 12: 13
    Vyacheslav Olegovich, thank you very much for this article and for the article about the battle of Sekigahar!
    I remembered with pleasure the distant 1995, when I had the honor to attend your lectures on the history of military affairs! You were our favorite teacher, in my memory the only lectures that attended not only our stream, but also people from neighboring ones!
    It was very interesting and informative.
    Best regards, Dmitry
    1. +2
      5 May 2015 18: 05
      You see where they met! They say people do it well and they will remember it! That's the way it is! Thanks for remembering!
      1. 0
        6 May 2015 10: 16
        As a child, I loved to watch programs with your participation on Penza television.
        Then it turned out that at the University it would happen to study with you.
        Nothing on Earth passes without a trace (s)
        Thank you! :)
  8. +2
    5 May 2015 13: 08
    where did the image of the swastika come from on the Kumade mace ???
    1. 0
      5 May 2015 13: 09
      An ancient symbol, it is so common in India
      1. +1
        5 May 2015 15: 39
        Well, with India it’s clear ... I’m saying that: it’s more than strange for Japan and China!
        1. +3
          5 May 2015 16: 21
          Quote: Russian Uzbek
          .I also say that: for Japan and China it is more than strange!

          No oddities. Only the swastika is correct, salting. Although both are engraved. hi
          1. +2
            5 May 2015 16: 45
            thank! be sure to get acquainted with the question
            1. +4
              5 May 2015 18: 14
              The swastika was both on the paper notes of the Provisional Government in Russia and on the coat of arms of the Kalmyk sov.Republic of 1922 of the year, and there were many more until its Nazis exiled themselves ...
          2. 0
            5 May 2015 18: 16
            The fact that the helmet emblem of the clan Tsugaru dominated in the northern part of Japan. On ships whose emblem I will not say ...
          3. 0
            6 May 2015 18: 44
            I don’t see anything strange in this!

            The swastika is an ancient Vedic symbol brought by the Aryans-Rus to India, and from there - along with Buddhism to China, the countries of Southeast Asia and Japan.
            1. 0
              7 May 2015 07: 24
              As far as I know, the swastika cannot be attributed specifically to the Aryan tribes, exactly how their attribute. This symbol is found in almost all ancient peoples, regardless of whether they were Indo-Europeans or not.
        2. avt
          +2
          5 May 2015 19: 34
          Quote: Russian Uzbek
          Well, with India it’s clear ... I’m saying that: it’s more than strange for Japan and China!

          From what ? As Buddhism advanced and what is called "martial arts" came from west to east. By the way, I personally saw in the Suzdal Museum, in Soviet times, a ceremonial church dress embroidered with a swastika from top to bottom.
          Quote: Igarr
          Knights broke broke with infantry, with commoners. At first - noble spears, necessarily - to break. To break a spear, there is no high above. If the squire has not yet been finished, commoners, then he will give another spear.
          This is if just knightly squads fight.

          Aha! They in Europe in general almost managed to turn the war into a knightly tournament, yes, the gray-footed infantry did not give, especially when the firearms appeared! Their then "authority" of knighthood, Bayard seems to have generally demanded that all "noble" and forbid "commoners" under pain of death, to use a firearm in a war against the "noble knighthood" fool in all seriousness. laughingIn the distance, they tried especially hardy frostbitten Hussites in the Czech Republic - they stumbled on the Germans.
          1. 0
            2 October 2016 13: 08
            About martial arts: bullshit. Martial arts existed everywhere, and at the same time. Neither from east to west, nor vice versa did they come. It would be interesting to compare treatises on hand-to-hand and qigong with European treatises on the subject of succession))))

            About sivolapuyu infantry similarly complete nonsense. No jousting tournaments were ever arranged on the battlefield. As for the infantry, this is a fantasy burner. The knights ruined progress when they dissolved into a huge mass army. As for the English archers, they were held at Pat, Formigny, Verneuil, and Granson. The Swiss infantry was slashed at Arbedo and at the Yakod-saint-de-Beers. And the Flemings for Kurtre were charged 80 years later under Rosebek, the spurs had to be returned. Turning private success into an infantry revolution is nonsense.
    2. 0
      5 May 2015 18: 06
      Eastern symbol! It was here that the fascists spoiled it, and in China, for example, a huge image of the swastika adorns the chest of the 160-meter Buddha in China!
  9. +6
    5 May 2015 14: 21
    The swastika, an ancient symbol, is often found in Buddhism. the symbol of the sun, as well as in the Buddha’s chest should be depicted, the seal of the Buddha if I’m not mistaken. The article is very interesting, thank you very much. I don't like Japanese, samurai culture at all. They make a ritual of everything, put on slippers, and then they have a ritual, most likely from idleness. We have no time to do this crap. Putting on slippers, as a last resort we take a look so that the cat doesn’t hurt us. English bows seem to me much better than Japanese, they hit 200 meters. It is interesting that Japanese civilization developed in fact in the complete absence of iron. There are no iron ore deposits in Japan. This is probably why the Yapes did not have all-metal armor.
    1. 0
      2 October 2016 12: 59
      all the iron armor was. In Russia, iron was also obtained from swamp sand.
      The level of your argument reveals a deep knowledge of samurai culture. )))
  10. 0
    5 May 2015 14: 30
    Nastalgal ... To this day, Haga Kure handbook - and your favorite weapon naginata ...
  11. +1
    5 May 2015 16: 16
    Thanks to the author. Superbly outlined material. Read in one go.

    I will add from myself.

    Free-falling dense tissue is able to protect from an arrow in the middle and or at the end of the flight path.

    There is an autumn good movie on the Discovery Channel. The authors are trying to determine the purpose of the parachuting cloak of the Japanese archer-rider. Wondered an element of decoration or military designation. After a series of experiments, it turned out that the arrow does not penetrate the light tissue. Energy is absorbed by the silk itself, inflated by the wind.

    And in the Russian segment of YouTube there is a video. The girl demonstrates the technique of high-speed shooting. Shooting between the way in a free-hanging fabric.

    Survival enthusiasts may be interested.
  12. 0
    5 May 2015 17: 21
    Does it make sense to read after:
    Let's start by comparing the arsenal of the Japanese samurai with the arsenal of a medieval knight from Western Europe. The difference in quantity and quality of their samples will immediately catch your eye. The arsenal of the samurai will prove to be much richer first.
    ?
    Samurai were BEATS. And they looked very poor against the background, even against the background of an ordinary Western infantryman. Their swords were truly shitty pieces of iron intended to cut the same conditionally hardened tramp. And the armor made on the basis of the Spanish cuirass with whistles and fakes attached to it was considered a huge chic.
    I am already beginning to think that yaponochnost is a passed stage, but it seems that not. In the next part, will there be a "ninjaato" with a square guard and a straight blade? - Is it worth mentioning that for the first time such a sword appeared in American cinema, after which the Japanese cheaters spread it across the Internet as a historical fact.
    1. +4
      5 May 2015 18: 12
      Why do you think out of yourself for the author? Who told you that he will throw himself on such nonsense? Is there something wrong in this article? So why (if everything is so) will be nonsense in the future? It is more reasonable to wait, and only then ... But I don’t carry a horse, and you are right behind the breasts. And about the ninja-yes it will be necessary, be patient!
    2. 0
      13 May 2015 13: 53
      I would advise you to study the material better. The Japanese did not have such a production culture as in Europe, so they obtained very expensive armor, and for this reason few wore them. Samurai often lived in ordinary villages - where did they get fancy forging or decoration? They used what they have.
      Finally, they have a climate such that heavy armor is not very bad.
      And lightweight defenses in Japan were highly developed, no worse than in Europe. Just many do not understand how these unusual things work.
      As for the "pieces of iron" that are used for cutting, you don't even know that. In Japan, a forging method was developed, which made it possible to make steel quite good - both elastic and strong, they knew about alloying additives there, although less. And quite a few swords were made at a good level, no worse than in Europe. You just need to understand that the bulk of metal products were made by village blacksmiths, not by townspeople, and a bunch of all sorts of pieces of iron like arrowheads, spears, bracers and other things were done primitively.
      1. 0
        2 October 2016 12: 53
        You should study the material yourself.
        1. Armor is always high-tech and for the nobility and other wealthy peppers, they are always expensive. In Europe, too few wore them. At any time in the Middle Ages, the amount of armor made of fabric was more than steel and leather combined.
        2. You are talking nonsense. There were no specialists in the village who could create a sword or armor.
        3. What is heavy armor is not clear. However, if you take Japanese armor before the 14th century, it was larger in weight and stronger than European ones. In the 14th century, the situation is leveled, and in the 15th Yapov armor is heavier than the European ones, but less durable.
        4. The climate here is generally neither village to city.
        5. This method of forging is a primitive damasking technology; moreover, if it was simpler and more convenient for other nations, then the Japanese were not without perversions.
    3. 0
      2 October 2016 12: 55
      So not all. Property stratification existed everywhere. Beggar knights were also there, and from armor they could only have a padded jacket and a sword of similar poor quality.
  13. +2
    5 May 2015 19: 47
    If we debunk myths, then let's be precise.
    And here it’s best to remember ... the legendary musketeers of Alexander Dumas! They were called so because their main weapon was a heavy wick musket.
    The indicated musketeers - the elite company of the guard of the king, in which the cream of the nobility served, were essentially not musketeers. Only by name. This unit was not combat by definition.
    In an extreme case, if suddenly, by chance, they still had to participate in the battle as a unit, they would be cuirassiers. With the usual 17th-century cuirassier tactics and weapons: a frontal attack at a gallop - a short-range pistol salvo followed by an immediate attack with a blade weapon at a gallop.
    In the remaining chapters of the novel, they dispense with swords. This is understandable. After all, it was the sword, and then its light version - the sword that were symbols of chivalry and belonging to the nobility in Europe.
    For the era described by Dumas, the sword of these musketeers is never an easy civilian toothpick of the subsequent 18th century. In this case, it is a full-fledged combat sword weighing about one and a half kg, a long blade of 100-115 cm and a complex guard. This is the size and weight of the medium bastard sword.

    As for the parallels, the real musketeers (as a kind of infantry) in the then Japan have an absolutely reliable analogue - the ashigaru.
    1. avt
      +1
      5 May 2015 20: 02
      Quote: abrakadabre
      The indicated musketeers - the elite company of the guard of the king, in which the cream of the nobility served, were essentially not musketeers. Only by name. This unit was not combat by definition.

      Musketeers, flies, flies ...... one stayed on the tip of the trunk, the others fly wassat You’ll think about it - Otkudava and who endowed them with this zbroi laughing Again, d Artagnan-again the Armenians! ?? wassat
      Quote: abrakadabre
      For the era described by Dumas, the sword of these musketeers is never an easy civilian toothpick of the subsequent 18th century.

      Yes, in taverns for bl ........ miles of pagdons - beautiful ladies and, in general, drunk, they put each other on a ramrod from a musket, that they and janissaries were forbidden to run around with weapons outside the service - they raged a lot, so they found a way out - janissaries with shortened scimitars, almost daggers from Oda - the barracks went out into the city, and these with ramrods and, again, daggers in their belt, usually from behind, well then someone who was more sober attached a handle and a cup. Or maybe he pierced it in a fight, planted it, liked it. So a "noble" weapon appeared to maintain the honor of the duelists - the sword.
      Quote: abrakadabre
      In this case, it is a full-fledged combat sword weighing about one and a half kg, a long blade of 100-115 cm and a complex guard. This is the size and weight of the medium bastard sword.

      Well, it’s fighting, it’s fighting, you can’t wave it like that in a tavern, and here the sword evolved into a rapier, and further with the development of technology it was easier, but all returned to the saber and heavy broadsword for cuirassiers - the same sword straight but one-sided sharpening.
      1. +3
        5 May 2015 20: 21
        Broadsword replaced the double-edged sword for the following reasons:
        I'll start from afar. At first, because of the arquebus, the armor finally became heavier, and instead of the most massive one-handed sword, the "big sword" - aka one-and-a-half sword - came into general use. But the main attack of the knights remained spear. Then the caliber and power of firearms increased even more - muskets spread. The spear has lost its combat value. The bladed weapon of the knights came to the fore along with the cavalry pistols.
        Due to the general lightening of the armor in general and the refusal of the plate gauntlet in particular (to make it convenient to use the gun), a good hand protection was required - the bastard sword guard became complicated with many arches. Bastard sword turned into a combat sword. However, he did not become shorter or lighter. Only the handle shortened to a one-handed grip (the second hand still holds the reins).
        So we went to the broadsword. If earlier, the bastard sword was symmetrical and it could be taken with one blade forward, which could be intercepted with the other blade forward. Now, a sophisticated guard made it possible to take weapons with only one side forward. The second blade has become redundant. So broadsword became a popular weapon. Although it existed long before that. It was just rare enough.
        1. +1
          5 May 2015 20: 51
          I add that the broadsword was promoted by the fact that heavy armor became not so common. Accordingly, a chopping blow against an unsuspected enemy again became effective, as in the days before the Crusades. If a late sword - a cavalry sword, a rittershvert, call it what you like, was more pricking than chopping, then a broadsword is definitely for cutting. Injections for broadsword an auxiliary technique, for example, if the cuirassier fights with the same cuirassier.
        2. 0
          2 October 2016 12: 41
          Heavier armor from arquebuses only among the higher feudal lords, i.e. a few percent of the army.
          One-and-a-half sword warsworth came into use since the 13th century if that. Oakeshott guarantees this.
          The spear did not lose its combat value, it was simply replaced by a pistol as a more convenient means. Although until the end of the 16th century they were used in parallel.
          Blade is still auxiliary.
          Garda with many arches has spread due to the sophistication of fencing.
          The issue of single-blade is price. For the mass army, they tried to make the cheapest weapons possible.
    2. +1
      6 May 2015 08: 16
      This will also be. As for the difference, which is where the musketeers are, this is like a guard and ordinary infantry, that's all. And so, they did not differ in weapons. And it’s understandable about the sword, by the way, this was already here.
      1. 0
        6 May 2015 14: 31
        As for the difference where the musketeers are, it’s like the guard and ordinary infantry, that’s all.
        Such a free interpretation of such various concepts as musketeers, a kind of infantry and royal musketeers, an elite noble unit, speaks either of a frivolous approach, or of poor knowledge of the subject.
        Formally, during the formation of a company of royal musketeers under Henry IV, this was conceived as equestrian infantry. But very soon everything returned to its noble circles — pure cavalrymen. It is understandable: counts and barons will not want to be equated with infantry, albeit elite and riding out of combat.
        1. 0
          6 May 2015 18: 20
          Well, the difference is in horses, not in weapons!
          1. 0
            7 May 2015 07: 49
            Only formally. The main difference in the contingent from which the personnel of the unit and related issues of traditions, education, class estates were completed ...
            If the royal musketeers recruited from the common people, then de jure and de facto would coincide completely. Where would they go.
            And so, de facto, they could not be traveling infantry.
            According to the functions of escort and protection of the king, they also could not be infantry.

            The most likely option for them to enter the battle as a unit is if the king personally wanted to take part in the battle, or a sudden attack on the monarch. The king does not move on foot to attack or from castle to castle.

            Of course, there is also a third option - a direct order of the king, no one will get out of here. But this is not a typical case. As well as options for storming fortifications or their defense (for the personal protection of the king).

            Incidentally, these points are very correctly reflected in the novels by Dumas, despite many other historical inaccuracies and stretches.
            For de jure purposes, the musketeers in the novel use muskets almost exclusively in the bastion in La Rochelle. The rest of the trilogy, in general, is entirely cuirassier, not even Reitars, with its methodical shelling at a distance. It is the cuirassier’s - a pistol salvo in one form or another and a decisive hand-to-hand melee attack on horseback. What is running around England for pendants, that in all kinds of pursuits, what is in front of Paris ... None of the musketeers themselves drags any muskets or even tries to use them. At most, the servants at the catch fire.

            And all because, beyond the use of spears, this type of battle is most consistent with knightly combat. In terms of the nobility.
  14. 0
    6 May 2015 05: 21
    Not ancient or Japanese! Everything that they have, including martial arts, the Bushido code and mythology, they stupidly torn among the indigenous people of the islands - Ainu or Ainu. Much has been written about this on the net.

    The Japanese are exactly the same copiers as the Chinese and Koreans. They came there from China centuries ago.
    1. +1
      6 May 2015 08: 18
      Then not "Bushido", right? They do not have "sh", and it is read in Japanese Bushido. "Sh" is the result of a clumsy translation of English translations from Japanese into Russian.
      1. avt
        0
        6 May 2015 11: 04
        Quote: kalibr
        Then not "Bushido", right? They do not have "sh", and it is read in Japanese Bushido.

        good laughing ,, Tyyy! You are a tovo! What - tovo !? Come on .... do not misbehave .... "This is an attempt on the sacred! On SUSHI, SASHIMI! laughing
        1. +1
          6 May 2015 14: 02
          They generally have a sizzling problem. Therefore, half, if not more, of Japaneseisms is pronounced in our country incorrectly.
          examples of wagon and cart.
          The same: bushido, jiu-jitsu - which is ju-jutsu ...
          1. 0
            6 May 2015 18: 32
            And the bad thing is that there are well-established terms, also Jiu-Jitsu, Yokohama - it must also be written differently ... Sushi ... which is sushi! Rome, which is Roma! William the Conqueror, who is Guillaume Bastard or William or William ... there are many such examples!
      2. 0
        6 May 2015 18: 47
        No, it’s just Bushchido, Mitsubishi, Shchogan, etc. That is how these names are pronounced by the Japanese. Unfortunately, this is our transcription slightly modified.
        1. +1
          6 May 2015 20: 20
          I do not know ... I have two students who worked there as volunteers, and before that they studied Japanese and ... BUSHIDO, SUSI, MITSUBISHI. One now has his own Japanese training company ... maybe they should know better ?! And there are a lot of books written on this topic. Look at the preface to the book of Nosov about Japanese weapons ... And he had given himself and himself there many times.
        2. 0
          7 May 2015 07: 53
          Just the same, no "cabbage soup", "scho". The Russian transcription "si" is more correct and closer to the original, in comparison with the transcription "shi" accepted in Europe. The Japanese themselves use the transcription "si" when translating into Latin.
          The Japanese embassy officially uses the Russian version of "si" when translating into Cyrillic. Note, not independently invented, but Russian.
          In Japanese, there is practically no hissing.
    2. 0
      18 October 2017 04: 42
      The network has a lot of nonsense written. Such a believe, do not respect yourself.
      Ainu were savage Papuans who knew neither iron nor civilization.
      All high Japanese culture, including war-borrowing from China.
  15. 0
    6 May 2015 08: 17
    The arsenal of the samurai will prove to be much richer first.
    Very controversial statement.
    Moreover, even a peasant could wear a sword in Europe. Bought - and wear it!
    Also very controversial. A lot of European decrees have come down to our time, regulating who can and cannot be bought and carried weapons. Including swords or swords. It was just possible for the peasants only to work and pay taxes. Not to mention the financial side of the issue. A sword or sword, an expensive weapon.
    The peasantry, the townspeople and the merchants had the right only to medium and short-blade weapons, such as hatchets, falsions and the like. The quality of steel, the price and status of such weapons was incomparably lower. But even in this case, wearing a sword on his belt a la (especially for peasants) was strictly suppressed. Only sheathed on a saddle or in a train (except for soldiers of low origin).
    The sword among them (samurai, my editing) became especially popular in the years of ... peace
    Wrong. The sword was used by the samurai without exception. Just in a situation of permanent secular massacre, samurai had no time to aesthetize. They enthusiastically slaughtered Bosch from generation to generation. Therefore, swords were more utilitarian.
    But during a long peace under the Tokugawa Shogunate, when even the samurai were massively and forcibly disarmed (armor in a closet, tati and other weapons of serious war for confiscation), there was nothing to do and veneration of the sword went from all slots.
    There was no one to fight with the samurai, work was below their dignity
    Work was not lower than their dignity, but it was directly forbidden by the authorities under the threat of losing the status of a samurai and moving to lower classes. Because of the isolation of Japan, the samurai had nowhere to put excess energy, and because of the relief of the country, the land was too valuable to distribute to vassals. Samurai were paid maintenance by Japanese daimyo princes in kind - rice. Therefore, the bulk of the samurai, despite their proud status, were rapidly impoverished. Hence the total fear of becoming a ronin - that is, a vagrant samurai on free breads, without a master and his salary. Hence the manic perversions in the Bushido code about loyalty to the lord.

    Despite the fact that the samurai was originally a heavily armed equestrian archer (in principle, there couldn’t be light cavalry in Japan, a horse is fabulously expensive in an overpopulated mountainous country), during the Troubles era, a considerable, if not most, of the samurai fought on foot.
    1. +1
      6 May 2015 18: 43
      Well, this is your point of view, nothing to confirm. Whose works do you refer to? Spevakovsky? Stephen Turnbull or Mitsuo Kure? As for decrees in Europe, wheel locks were forbidden to wear there, but only ... who performed something? And the samurai worked !!! Alas, yes. Although they tried to get easier. This is about Kure, by the way. I honestly admit that the social problems of feudalism is not an expert. My topic is the English-language historiography of knightly weapons, but even here I know who wrote, when, what and even why, so if my statements seem to you to be controversial, then alas, I cannot help. All this is based on a source base from 1975 of the year to 2008 of the year. There is my monograph on this topic in the publishing house of Lomonosov, 2013. There, all with links to sources and reputable scientists recognized in the scientific world.
  16. +1
    6 May 2015 08: 31
    The usual range of an aimed shot is 60 meters, well in the master’s hands, such a weapon is capable of sending an arrow to 120 meters.
    Any combat bow is capable of sending an arrow much further than 120 meters. It is worth pointing out that this is the aiming distance for the master.
    But in Western Europe, the feudal lords did not recognize the bow for military weapons.
    Nonsense, even as recognized. Any knight, like a professional military man, learned to wield any weapon. Including bow and crossbow. And he actively used these weapons during sieges.
    Another thing is that this weapon was available to all classes. This equated the noble knight with any goat security. What could not please the knight and very pleased the goat security. Therefore, the bow, in principle, could not have an aura of holiness and chivalry, as in the case of a sword, armor and a knightly spear. That's all.
    1. 0
      6 May 2015 18: 48
      He studied, yes, but he considered it dishonorable to use a bow against his fellow knighthood. I have an article on this topic in the magazine "History Illustrated". And in some international collection, I don't remember, but on the Web. There are two civilizations; lukophiles and lukophobes. And now the West is just lukophobes. That is, a bow in someone else's hand as a weapon - yes! For hunting - yes! Against the infidels - both a bow and a crossbow! But not against another knight !!! Re-read Maurice Druon where Louis the Grumpy shoots pigeons in the barn and how they treat it there.
      1. +1
        7 May 2015 08: 18
        He studied, yes, but considered it to be dishonorable to use onions against a brotherly knight.
        I beg of you. Between the knights of the novels and extremely rare individual representatives like Bayard on the one hand and the bulk of the chivalry on the other, the difference in the nobleness of behavior is no less than between the ballerina and the gopnik.
        Knights in everyday life were gopniks. Legalized gopnik. Especially in the heyday of chivalry - 12-15 centuries. With absolute power within their domain. If they held back something there, then only in public. Or out of fear that someone will doubt their extremely high status that sets them apart from the mob. The inconceivable ChSV multiplied for the whole life with the weapon. Therefore, in the eyes of those around them, the same knights, the spear is cool, but the bow is not. But this does not mean that the knights underestimated the bows and crossbows. Or doubted the need for their use on occasion, even against other knights. To think so is complete idealism.

        Re-read Maurice Druon
        Druon, as it were, did not write historical-scientific things. A entertaining.
    2. 0
      2 October 2016 12: 29
      Justify the use of knights bows and crossbows. In addition to a couple of pictures and a couple of mentions in the annals there is nothing. There are no competitions in archery among the knights. There are no instructions.
      In short it is bullshit. The knights did not use the riflemen in the mass, they could sitively, constantly - no.
  17. 0
    6 May 2015 09: 19
    Quote: abrakadabre

    Another thing is that this weapon was available to all classes. This equated the noble knight with any goat security. What could not please the knight and very pleased the goat security. Therefore, the bow, in principle, could not have an aura of holiness and chivalry, as in the case of a sword, armor and a knightly spear. That's all.

    This is the same nonsense as saying that owning a car equalizes Abramovich (Ferrari) and Vanka (Niva) from a neighboring entrance. Composite bows could be exactly the same chic as the rest of the equipment. That's all.
    1. +1
      6 May 2015 14: 13
      Composite bows could be exactly the same chic as the rest of the equipment.
      Composite bows - yes, chic. Just bows - no. And then, composite bows en masse - this is for you in the steppe or the Middle East. In Europe, this niche was occupied by crossbows. As a mass weapon, not single copies. But even in the case of a composite bow, your allegories of value are wrong.
      "Mercedes" is a knight's horse + armor + weapons.
      "Niva" is a composite bow, chapel, gambeson, crossbow, cleaver + simple shield ...
      Most of the peasants had access to nothing more than a tattered "bicycle" - a club from the nearest forest.

      And further. Nowadays there are no official estates and castes. Therefore, in principle, nothing prevents Vanka from accumulating, robbing Mercedes or more from a neighboring entrance and becoming equal to Abramovich - go for it ...
      But in the conditions of medieval estates, if some "Vanka", even putting on display the amount required for "Mercedes", tries to call itself "Abramovich", by order of the latter and others there "Deripasok" will come running blockheads and cut off his head. Or just hang on the nearest tree.
      1. 0
        6 May 2015 18: 50
        It was cooler: impostors, knights planted astride a fence, and then fought off spurs on the dunghill.
      2. 0
        2 October 2016 12: 24
        Last name Busiko what does the thread tell you?
        As for the tattered bike, read the real documents of assise and statutes on the theme of weapons? Why express your fantasies, if science knows?
  18. 0
    6 May 2015 18: 59
    Quote: kalibr
    The swastika was both on the paper notes of the Provisional Government in Russia and on the coat of arms of the Kalmyk sov.Republic of 1922 of the year, and there were many more until its Nazis exiled themselves ...

    Saint Petersburg
  19. 0
    6 May 2015 19: 13
    Thank you for the article . informative . mysterious east ........
  20. Hajate
    0
    7 May 2015 09: 40
    It is a completely self-contained article, nothing more.
  21. kvs45
    0
    8 May 2015 00: 53
    Quote: abrakadabre
    In Europe, this niche was occupied by crossbows.

    crossbows had significant + no need to learn long! I gave it to the militia, set it on the walls, took the assault, took away the crossbows, locked it in the arsenal and walk Jean home))) With a bow it’s more difficult: it’s quite easy to make a weapon, but you need to train for years, and how you trained, take the bow, don’t take it away, eat chance to get a team of free shooters in your garden (((((
    1. 0
      8 May 2015 09: 06
      This is a completely different question. Costs, so to speak
    2. 0
      2 October 2016 12: 20
      This is illiteracy.
      Crossbowmen were townspeople, not peasants. An experiment with franc archers showed why.
      Yes, archery required constant practice, so the peasants did not deal with this garbage. Only poachers practiced.

      Experience with franc archers, i.e. when peasants were exempted from taxes so that they would buy crossbows, as well as medieval documents such as weapons assizes and statutes, for example, the Winchester 1279, which oblige the entire population to acquire weapons for their money in proportion to their income level, clearly shows that you will say stupid things .

      As for the uprisings, then again it does not depend on bows, crossbows and other rubbish. Example of Jacquerie.

      You just start from the idiotic idea that it is worth giving the peasant a weapon, as he immediately rushes to cut the throat of the overlord / feudal lord. While the reality was such that the rulers sought to arm people to the maximum so that they could be used in hostilities.
  22. 0
    2 October 2016 12: 01
    This article is a great example of why on serious military history forums such as X-Legio, TozheForum, etc. V. Shpakovsky's books are always included in the "black list". I actually join, because of course it can be useful in Shpakovsky's work, especially when he rewrites something from knowledgeable authors, but when he himself tries to comprehend questions in which he does not understand a belmesa, it turns out to be a fantasy.

    In this case, the article itself is poorly written. It was about the arsenal of the samurai, which supposedly surpasses the knight's)))), and from the samurai arsenal, in addition to the sword, only a bow and a spear are mentioned, the rest of the intricate gadgets are included there for no reason why, for the samurai were not specific weapons. This time.
    If the author put forward the thesis that the samurai arsenal is richer than the knight’s, then it would be nice to list one and the other, otherwise it turns out idle talk, and the author is empty-handed. This two.

    // Let's start by comparing the arsenal of the Japanese samurai with the arsenal of a medieval knight from Western Europe. The difference in quantity and quality of their samples will immediately catch your eye. The arsenal of the samurai will first of all be much richer.//
    And nothing further ...
    Okay, I’ll do his work for Shpakovsky:
    Samurai: 1. Bow 2. Spear 3. Naginata 4. Dagger (tanto, aiguchi, hamidasi) 5. Stiletto (yoroy dosi) 6. Tati sword 7. o-dati - a large two-handed sword. Moreover, these are all weapons widely used by samurai, which does not mean that they could and knew how to use only them. It is also worth noting that this list is precisely an arsenal, and not everyone took to the battle at the same time, for example, in the early period they used a bow, sword and dagger; later a spear or naginata was added; In pedestrian combat they could not have taken the bow.
    Knight 1 A. Cavalry Spear, 1 b. spear for foot combat, for the early period of separation between the cavalry and infantry, there was no 2 one-handed sword, 3. a dagger or misericord 4. Pollex - ax 5. pollex - hammer 6. hammer 7. shepherd and mace 8. ax 9. falchion 10. saddle swords for two hands 11. Morgenstern 12. Eestok borshvert, pershvert, panzerbreher 13. Bill, thimble, causa, guizarma and glaive - on foot battle 14. Alpspec. Again, everything was taken into battle, but in addition to a spear, a sword later than 2 swords !!!, a dagger, a short hammer, a brush or an ax must have been used, and in foot combat the basis was a pole weapon.

    This shows what Shpakovsky’s fabrications are worth. ))))

    // However, was he their main weapon, and if so, was it always that way? Here is the sword of the knight - yes, indeed, it has always been a symbol of chivalry, but with the samurai sword everything is far from so simple
    Nonsense. How are the concepts of the symbol and the main weapon generally related? The sword was never the main weapon. Nowhere. He was allowed in only after the spear. And in foot combat, he was always inferior in importance to the pole.

    // Firstly, this is not a sword, but a saber. // Shpakovsky, statement of cosmic scale and the same stupidity. In general, this is a debatable issue and not a few copies are broken. Against your thoughtless and categorical statement, I have the following objection:
    1. How much do you know a saber in which the blade is so slightly curved?
    2. How many sabers have a two-handed handle?
    3. How many sabers are prone to pricking?

    // clearly show how important for the Japanese it was kyudo - the art of archery. //
    Yes, not kyudo, but kyu-jutsu! Literate!

    // The Japanese made their bows from bamboo, while the difference from the bows of other peoples, who also used bamboo for this, they were very large and also asymmetrical, since it was believed that it would be more convenient to aim and shoot with such a warrior . Moreover, such a bow was especially convenient for shooting from a horse.

    Bullshit. Yumi could not be more convenient. Because of the asymmetry, its upper part weighs more than the lower, lower and upper parts have different stiffness and elasticity, which is bad for accuracy, wielding a 2.5 meter stick while sitting in the saddle is extremely inconvenient.
    Hefty fee for bad stuff. The stiffer the material, the more you need to make the shoulder so that it does not break when bent.
    There are several versions about asymmetry: 1) a denser bamboo went to the lower one, thus equalizing the load on the upper and lower parts. 2) ease of shooting from the knee.
    Which one is correct, and is there any correct one among them?

    // For example, yumi intended for naval battles were supposed to pull seven people at once. //
    What rubbish are you talking about, Shpakovsky! How do you imagine pulling an onion all the way? what size and what material this bow was supposed to be from, what arrows should be made of, so that the monstrous power would not break them, and most importantly how to aim, to get at least somewhere!

    // and the plumage is made of feathers. // Thanks, Cap! What about the number of feathers? What feathers of birds? What shape were they cut out and what size were they? Which way were they twisted?
  23. 0
    2 October 2016 12: 02
    The most tsimes! Analytics from Shpakovsky! Concentration of stupidity reaches 99%
    // But in Western Europe, the feudal lords did not recognize the bow for military weapons. Already the ancient Greeks considered a bow a weapon of a coward, // yeah let's say Odyssey! And also Eros and Apollo !!

    and the Romans called it "insidious and childish." // Romans farmers, they stupidly did not know how to shoot a bow in bulk. And the sense of the bow in shelling the phalanx to say the least a little.

    // Charlemagne demanded that his warriors wear a bow and issue appropriate capitulations (decrees), but he did not succeed much in this! // We are waiting for the justification!

    // Sports equipment for muscle training - yes, // No, in Europe there were no bows for muscle training (in the era when the bow was a military weapon). Or give sources.

    // hunting weapons - to earn food in the forest, combining a pleasant pastime with useful work - yes, but to fight with a bow in the hands of other knights like him, like himself - God forbid! //
    What is this nonsense? Shpakovsky you are extremely illiterate! 1) What for a knight a bow? To fire at the enemy at a gallop, one must abandon the knightly landing on long stirrups and in the saddle lying directly on the horse's back and use the "eastern" landing on short stirrups and with a high saddle on pillows. For when shooting from a bow from the saddle, the warrior stands up on the stirrups and squeezes the legs with his legs, thus he raises his butt above the saddle and dampens the shaking from the jump with his knees, which allows him to hit somewhere, even from close distances. With a knightly landing, with outstretched legs, such a number will not work. However, the eastern landing is very unstable and, when hand-to-hand, is fraught with emergency leaving the saddle. By the way, Persians, Mongols, Turks, Arabs, etc. for light riders they used a high seating position, and for heavy riders low, like knights. Therefore, the heavily armed horsemen of the Eastern peoples used the bow for self-defense, firing from the spot, at the horse archers trying to attack them. By the way, it was the absence of masses of horse archers in European wars that caused the absence of a bow in the panoplia of the knights, because they had no one to defend against. And in rare squabbles with Hungarians, etc. horse archers were simply taken on their spears with a counter blow.

    // Moreover, bows and crossbows in the European armies were used, but ... they recruited commoners for this: in England - Yeomen peasants, in France - Genoese crossbowmen, and in Byzantium and the crusader states in Palestine - Muslim Turkules. //
    Well, yes, the presence of shooters significantly increased the tactical capabilities of the troops. However, the arrows were always only auxiliary troops and therefore they were naturally recruited from the lower classes. Actually archery men were always recruited by those who were hunters, and crossbowmen from the townspeople, where there were companies of crossbowmen, an attempt to create a franc of archers from peasants failed. Archers from Yeomen are nonsense, the peasants in England could not shoot from the bow, poachers from the Welsh borderland and other places where they hunted deer went there.

    That is, in Europe, the knight’s main weapon was originally a double-edged sword, // no. The main weapon was not at all. The first blow was delivered with a spear, in close quarrels they fought with daggers, hammers were used against an armored enemy, and on foot battle were fought by ex-exes. Swords were launched as needed.

    // and the bow was considered a weapon unworthy of a noble warrior. // Why would a friend ????

    // Moreover, archer-riders in the European armies were forbidden to shoot from a horse. //
    Extravaganza of stupidity. To begin with, in Europe there weren’t so many archers in the gardeners ... But those whom Shpakovsky considers archers in the gardeners are archers from the feudal retinue who rode on horseback like dragoons. And they were not forbidden anything, just shoot from a galloping horse, you need to be able to, and in order to be able to do this, you need to grow up in the saddle like a nomad.
    // In Japan it was the other way around - it was from the very beginning that the weapon was the noble warriors, and the sword served for self-defense in close combat.// Not the other way around, but in the same way.

    // Then, when long yari appeared, which became weapons against the cavalry, they began to be used more likely as a shock weapon. Such spears were usually armed with walking ashigaru warriors, reminiscent of the ancient Macedonian phalanx with long peaks lined up one to one.
    Mr. Shpakovsky, let it be known to you that long spears of 5-6 m are widespread, these are the Swiss and Lansknechts and the Macedonians and Cherusks, and even they were on the Hawaiian Islands. And what was characteristic they were used not against the cavalry, which was enough for ordinary copies, but against the infantry. So the Swiss are arming themselves with long peaks when they begin to encounter landsknechts, they, in turn, tried to keep up. The Macedonian phalanx fought with enemy infantry, and not with cavalry. There were no horses in the harbors. At the Cherusks, the army likewise consisted of a clan militia, and even the leaders fought on foot in the general mass. Of course, they did not repel any cavalry attacks.
  24. The comment was deleted.