Poll: Who wins?
You do not have permission to vote in this poll.
Samurais show the gaijins the way of Bushido.
50.00%
1 50.00%
Conquistadors teach the weebs about Jesus.
50.00%
1 50.00%
Total 2 vote(s) 100%
* You voted for this item. [Show Results]

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Spanish Conquistadors vs Japanese Samurai
#1
Pick on someone your own technology level, you big bully!

[Image: dscn4110_1024.jpg]

An army of 10000 samurai (3000 melee infantry, 3000 musketeers, 3000 archers and 1000 cavalry) led by Oda Nobunaga.

[Image: 4ac494e4f1ab3dc5ef6df9ac9043a190.jpg]
An army of 10000 conquistadors (3000 melee infantry, 3000 arquebusiers, 3000 crossbowmen and 1000 cavalry), led by Hernan Cortez.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Kazanshin's post:
  • Lightning
Reply
#2
This is going to be one great battle! I'll give it to the Spanish because:

1) The Spanish steel armour would be superior to the Samurai's iron + leather armour.

2) I think the Spanish swords like espada ropera will be more useful against armoured opponents than the Japanese katana. The rapier is primarily a thrusting weapon which, in battle, are better then slashing weapons imo because they take less time and room to operate and are easier to aim at unarmoured parts of the enemy. Plus, I think the Spanish sword is stronger and more likely to be able to penetrate armour than the katana is.

3) I believe the Spanish cavalry has superior armour and weaponry than the Japanese cavalry.
[Image: 97armadura-de-cortes_gp.JPG]

4) The crossbow has greater penetrating power than the yumi and will e more useful against armoured opponents.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Lightning's post:
  • Fair Whisper
Reply
#3
(09-28-2018, 03:06 PM)Lightning Wrote: This is going to be one great battle! I'll give it to the Spanish because:

1) The Spanish steel armour would be superior to the Samurai's iron + leather armour.

2) I think the Spanish swords like espada ropera will be more useful against armoured opponents than the Japanese katana. The rapier is primarily a thrusting weapon which, in battle, are better then slashing weapons imo because they take less time and room to operate and are easier to aim at unarmoured parts of the enemy. Plus, I think the Spanish sword is stronger and more likely to be able to penetrate armour than the katana is.

3) I believe the Spanish cavalry has superior armour and weaponry than the Japanese cavalry.
[Image: 97armadura-de-cortes_gp.JPG]

4) The crossbow has greater penetrating power than the yumi and will e more useful against armoured opponents.

I shall have to disagree and stand for my ancestors.

1: Japanese also had steel armour, especially when talking about the Sengoku Jidai, which is basically the Renaissance. In this case, it will be the Tosei Gusoku. The joints will also be connected with chain and not leather.

2: The katana can stab well enough. It's a misconception that katanas can only slash. Add to that the superior training of the samurai, which will give him better precision, and you have the equation.

3: Armor armor armor. Yeah, that armor will do very well against a bajotsutsu horseback pistol. And that armor won't be doing any good for mobility.

4: The only advantage the crossbow has is power. The Yumi has accuracy, fire rate, reliability and horseback potential.


Now onto the samurai's advantages:

1: The tanegashima was more advanced than the original arqybusz especially the ones used by the Conquistadors during the invasion of the New World, which was a slow burning match style. The tanegashima was a snap matchlock with both a front and rear sight as well as a pistol grip

2: The samurai will be better trained, even if the Conquistadors are professional soldiers, since they were literally warrior-nobilities. They lived and trained for the sole purpose of war, especially during the Sengoku Jidai.

3: Nobunaga is a massively better general than Cortes. Cortes bullied a bunch of stone people into giving him gold and only won because he brought guns to a stone fight. Nobunaga used tactics and innovation to outmatch foes like the Takeda cavalry, the Mori Navy and especially the battle of Okehazama.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Kazanshin's post:
  • Lightning
Reply
#4
Welp, for what it's worth, when the Europeans (Portuguese and Spanish) did fight the Japanese in the 1500's and 1600's in real life, the Europeans proved far superior and usually won. The only times the Japanese won was when they had a huge numerical advantage but, even then, they suffered far higher casualties than the Portuguese/Spanish.

The following is what I know about battles between the Japanese and Europeans in the 1500's/1600's. Now these may not be Cortes and Oda Nobunaga and many or most are naval battles rather than land so may not give a very accurate representation of this match. However, the weapons/armour used by both sides and the training/experience/professionalism of individual soldiers would have been similar or the same as those used in this match so these real life battles are still relevant to some extent imo.

So here goes...

Quote:1561: 15 Portuguese are killed in Hirado and a Portugese captain is killed Akune in clashes with the Japanese residents. This are the first recorded clash between Europeans and Japanese. In summary, the Japanese won this small clash but they would have had an overwhelming numerical advantage. Plus, Japanese casualties are unknown.

 
Siege of Moji (1561): The Samurai Mori Clan held a castle in a place called Moji. The rival Samurai Otomo clan and their Portuguese allies wanted to capture the castle. The Portuguese with three ships, each with 17 or 18 cannons, bombarded the Mori troops (in what was the first bombardment on Japan by foreign ships) and this enabled the Otomo clan to establish themselves around the castle. However, the Portuguese ships run out of ammunition and left. The Otomo troops failed to capture the castle. In summary, it seems Portuguese firepower managed to cause the Mori samurais to retreat and enabled the Otomo samurais to surround the castle.
 
Battle of Fukuda Bay (1565): The first naval battle between European and a Japanese forces. A Japanese daimyo called Matsura Takanobu wanted to punish a group of Portuguese for not trading at his port but going to a different one. 9 Junk ships and 60 smaller ships carried hundreds of Samurai towards a Portuguese carrack ship. Most of the Portuguese crew was on shore, so the carrack only had 80 Portuguese crew and an unknown number of Chinese merchants and African slaves on board. The Japanese boarded the carrack and captured the captain-major Joao Pereira, whose helmet got dented by a Japanese musket shot. However, the Japanese then got repulsed and a nearby Portuguese galleon fired on the Japanese fleet and sank three ships. The Japanese then retreated, with over 70 of them dead and over 200 wounded. Portuguese casualties were 8 dead. In summary, this was a naval battle and not a land one but it seems the Portuguese had an overwhelming firepower advantage over the Japanese samurais since they won with fewer men and suffered far fewer casualties. Also, the Portugese captain's helmet was durable enough to protect him from a headshot by a Japanese musket. Moreover, the carrack's crew managed to repulse the samurais on board despite being outnumbered, thus showing the Portuguese either had better melee weapons or were just better fighters or both.
 
Cagayan battles (1582): A battle between the Spanish Navy with 6 small ships plus 40 sailors and about a thousand Pirates called Wokou, made up of Japanese ronin (samurai who don't owe allegiance to any particular lord or state), and Japanese and Chinese merchants, smugglers, ex-soldiers etc. The Spanish were led by captain Juan Pablo de Carrion. The Spanish were sent to Cagayan river in the Philippines to drive out pirates who were bothering the inhabitants. The Spanish first shot and disabled a pirate ship. The Spanish then encountered a pirate sampan ship and boarded it. A battle then took place of the deck of the ship. The Spanish, armoured and armed with pikes and arqebuses faced armoured pirates wielding katanas and muskets. The pirates had the numerical advantage but the Spanish eventually won. The Spanish then discovered a pirate fleet of 18 Sapman ships. The Spanish fought their way through using artillery and landed on the shore. They then drug trenches, set up an artillery platform and continued bombarding the pirates. The pirates said they'd agree to leave if the Spanish paid them gold but Carrior refused. The pirates then attacked with a land army of 600. The Spanish trenches withstood three pirate assualts but the Spanish were now running low on gunpowder. Thus, they charged out of the trenches and defeated the surprised pirates. The Spanish took katana and Japanese armour as trophies. Spanish casualties were 10 to 20 dead and wounded and pirate casualties were several hundred dead. In summary, these may have been pirates but many were samurai and had samurai equipment, training and experience. The Spanish, with far fewer men, defeated them on both sea and land and inflicted far higher casualties than they suffered themselves. The battle involved both gunfire and melee fighting and the Spanish came out on top convincingly.

1608 incident in Macau: In 1608, a Japanese ship belonging to Hinoe daimyo Arima Harunobu landed in Macau and intended to spend the winter there. But the Samurais were badly behaved and bothered the Chinese residents. Once, they got into a serious fight and the Portuguese magistrate came to stop them. But the Samurais injured him and killed his retainers. Then captain-major Andre Pessoa arrived with reinforcements. The Samurais fled and took refuge in two houses. Pessoa said he'll spare those who surrender but the 27 samurais in the first house refused to surrender and were gunned down after they were forced out of the house by fire. The 50 Samurais in the second house surrendered and most of them (except the ringleaders) were allowed to escape. In summary, so there were 77 samurais. The Portuguese numbers are not stated but it's unlikely they would have been much higher (if higher at all) since they rarely had over 100 to 200 soldiers in actual battles and this was merely an unexpected clash. Reading the descriptions, it seems the Portugese won easily and the samurais didn't put up much of a fight.

1610 Nossa Senhora da Graca incident: In 1609, Andre Pessoa and his Portuguese soldiers were in Japan for trade. But then the Japanese survivors of the 1608 Macau incident reached Japan and told their version of the events. Shogun Leyasu was furious and ordered the Capture of Pessoa. But Pessoa was tipped off by the Christian community in Japan and he and his 50 Portuguese crew (and unknown number of African slaves and lascars) boarded their carrack and got going. 3000 samurai set off after them in dozens of ships. Over the next three days, the Portuguese kept the Japanese ships at bay with gunfire and hand grenades. The Japanese suffered several hundred dead whilst the Portuguese suffered only 4 or 5 Portuguese dead and a few African slaves and lascars dead up to the third day. On the third day, a few of the samurais managed to board the Portugese carrack but were cut down. Pessoa himself killed two samurais. But, on that day, six hours into the fighting, a shot from a Japanese ship hit a fire pot on the hand of a Portuguese soldier, smashing it onto the gunpower on the floor. This set off a fire. Pessoa did not have enough men to fight both the fire and the Japanese boarders. But he decided he'd rather die than surrender. Thus, he set fire to the ship's magazine and it blew up in two successive explosions. In summary, the Portugese seem to have had a massive firepower advantage. Their guns and artillery would have been superior since they managed to hold out for so longer and inflicted far higher casualties than they suffered themselves, despite being massively outnumbered.

Quote:1: Japanese also had steel armour, especially when talking about the Sengoku Jidai, which is basically the Renaissance. In this case, it will be the Tosei Gusoku. The joints will also be connected with chain and not leather.

The Spanish plate armour would still be more durable.

Quote:2: The katana can stab well enough. It's a misconception that katanas can only slash. Add to that the superior training of the samurai, which will give him better precision, and you have the equation.

In a battle involving armoured soldiers like this, I think the raw strength of the Spanish sword is more advantageous. And precision will be difficult in the midst of a battle.

Quote:3: Armor armor armor. Yeah, that armor will do very well against a bajotsutsu horseback pistol. And that armor won't be doing any good for mobility.

The armour won't protect the Spaniard from gunfire every time but it might on some occasions.  I can't remember which battle it was but I read about a battle between Portuguese and Indians (or was it the Ottomans) in the 1500's were the Portuguese armour did quite well against gunfire, if I remember correctly. Then there's that Portuguese captain whose helmet saved in from a headshot by a Japanese musket at Fukuda Bay. I think the Spanish would have had the same or similar armour to the Portuguese since they were close geographically and culturally.  Also, the speed and mobility is in the horse lol.

Quote:4: The only advantage the crossbow has is power. The Yumi has accuracy, fire rate, reliability and horseback potential.

I think power is the most important in a battle involving heavily armoured soldiers. Would yumi arrows be able to penetrate the Spanish plate armour? Accuracy and fire rate are important advantages for the yumi but it'd be difficult, though not impossible, to aim at vulnerable points on the enemy in the midst of battle.

Quote:
1: The tanegashima was more advanced than the original arqybusz especially the ones used by the Conquistadors during the invasion of the New World, which was a slow burning match style. The tanegashima was a snap matchlock with both a front and rear sight as well as a pistol grip

I see. But the Spanish and Portuguese conquistadors usually defeated the Japanese samurais in gunfights in real life.

Quote:2: The samurai will be better trained, even if the Conquistadors are professional soldiers, since they were literally warrior-nobilities. They lived and trained for the sole purpose of war, especially during the Sengoku Jidai.

But the Spanish and Portuguese conquistadors seemed to have literally whooped the samurais in every major battle they fought in real life. Maybe the Spanish/Portuguese armour was really good and/or maybe the Spanish/Portuguese being significantly larger, stronger, perhaps tougher (sailing all across the world in dreadful conditions and fighting all sorts of different warriors across the world would make you tough as nails) on average had something to do with it.

Quote:3: Nobunaga is a massively better general than Cortes. Cortes bullied a bunch of stone people into giving him gold and only won because he brought guns to a stone fight. Nobunaga used tactics and innovation to outmatch foes like the Takeda cavalry, the Mori Navy and especially the battle of Okehazama.

No doubt Nobunaga is better. But I think Cortes is still a good general, having defeated the rival Spaniards under Narvaez despite being quite badly outnumbered.
[-] The following 2 users Like Lightning's post:
  • Kazanshin, Mondas
Reply
#5
When I get back from a picnic I am going to post on here. Not so much about who wins (this doesn’t interest me enough to warrant my opinion on that).
[Image: 9wf8nho.png]
Reply
#6
Quote:The tanegashima was more advanced than the original arqybusz especially the ones used by the Conquistadors during the invasion of the New World, which was a slow burning match style. The tanegashima was a snap matchlock with both a front and rear sight as well as a pistol grip

I've seen you make these points elsewhere, where it was more about European vs. Japanese matchlocks in general. Forgive me if I veer more into European matchlocks as a whole as opposed to what the conquistadors specifically used.

On the snap matchlock: Yeah, the snap matchlock was certainly more sophisticated and superior to the original matchlock design (which I believe was just an extremely simple lever, serpentine mechanism). However, the hyperlinked source seems to imply that snap matchlocks were used by conquistadors (The Conquistador: 1492-1550). I guess it would make sense, considering the snap matchlock was invented all the way back in 1475, so Europeans must have wanted to use them whenever they could get their hands on them, as well as sear matchlocks. It's worth noting its drawbacks, though. While snap matchlocks provided less time for the user's aim to be disturbed because the cock hits the pan quickly and forcefully, often times it came down with so much force that it actually snuffed out the match without "touching off" the powder charge. This wasn't as much of a problem with the sear matchlock mechanism, where the long "tiller" would more slowly bring down the cock and more surely fire off the charge (though not always instantaneously; Buying Used Muzzleloading Guns, Volume 2). In fact, it seems this was enough of a problem that snap matchlocks fell out of favor in Europe by ~1550 (From Musket to Metallic Cartridge: A Practical History of Black Powder Firearms). I'm not entirely sure when the sear lock was invented, though. Before 1521 it seems (when a modified version of the sear lock, the pressure lock, was invented), which just so happens to be the year when Cortez invaded and conquered the Aztec Empire. So maybe some kind of it may have been heard of, and I imagine adopted by the conquistadors (well, it would have been smart, if they could afford them).

On sights: 16th century European matchlocks could have had front and rear sights too. Here's one example (original source).

Rear sight:
[Image: 15thc_matchlock6.JPG]

Front sight:
[Image: 15thc_matchlock4.JPG]

Another one below (original source; it's the second gun, click the image for additional photos).

Rear sight (between the cock and the thing right above the lever):
[Image: leve2.jpg]

Front sight:
[Image: leve6.jpg]

On pistol grips: 

[Image: extra1.jpg]
[Image: post-1865-14196774734662.jpg]

So these are just a couple examples of the tanegashima teppo. I very much hesitate to call them pistol grips. The grip just doesn't seem downward pointing or curved enough for that. Like, any more a "pistol grip" than say, this (not a matchlock, I know, just to provide a comparison)?

[Image: -US-Marked-CHARLEVILLE-1777-Flintlock-MU...271612.jpg]

When I think a pistol grip, I'm thinking this (this is a Formosan matchlock, in case anyone's wondering).

[Image: H20253-L141206966.jpg]
[Image: 9wf8nho.png]
[-] The following 2 users Like Ausar's post:
  • Kazanshin, Lightning
Reply
#7
It's gonna take me a lot of time to respond to this, but let's get to it:

The siege of Moji: That siege was lost by the Otomo and the Portuguese and they were both repealed from the castle.

Fukuda bay: That's a case of naval battle. Japan never had a powerful navy, something that was made evident during the Imjin war. It's a very different case from a land battle. Japanese ships had yet to adopt cannons, widespread firearms  or large battleships like the Atakebune. Firearms only became a massive force in Japan after the battle of Nagashino, ten years after Fukuda bay. Only then did the Daimyos of Japan see how effective and powerful matchlock muskets were and adopted them. I'd safely place my bets on a later Japanese Tekkosen warship against any contemporary European ship.

The Cagayan battles: None of the pirates were samurai. Wokou were almost completely Korean, Chinese and even Portguese, but only a fraction of them were of Japanese ethnicity, let alone Samurais. And this is coming from Chinese wokous, much closer and easier to raid for the Japanese than Cagayan. So no, there's nothing suggesting many of them were samurai, let alone Japanese. Here's a lengthy blog debunking the whole thing.

Macau: Only the first 27 Samurai fought in an actual clash. Furthermore, Macau, being a Portuguese colony, likely had the superior numbers as the OP states. 77 vs 100-200 is a decisive advantage.

Nossa Senhora de Grasa: This is again a naval battle, something that Japan never became skilled in until the Russo-Japanese war, and to top it all off was after the end of the Sengoku Jidai. It also states there were 3000 Samurai, which I'm highly skeptical about. An army of 3000 samurai would be hard to come by at that time even in Japan, let alone in such a remote place. No, the Japanese forces were likely mostly local residents and civilians, not professional soldiers.



Matchlocks: This time this comes down to the men in charge, Nobunaga and Cortes. When looking at the two men, it's clear Nabunaga had a far superior love for firearms than his opponent. During the Spanish invasion of the Aztec empire, only 80 arquebusiers were present. Meanwhile, Nobunaga utilized 3000 musketeers against the Takeda Gun at Nagashino. Even compared to the total number of men in the armies, Nobunaga had twice the number of gunners. This makes me think Nobunaga will be putting far more efforts than Cortes in securing good quality guns.

As for the snap matchlock's downsides, I don't think they'll come into play a lot. Japanese musketeers tended to have multiple pre-ignited slow-burning fuses in case the original one was extinguished.

Pistol grips, I feel like you're specifically choosing tanegashimas without prominent grips, because they really do exist and can easily be found (maybe only on the Japanese internet, in that case sorry).

[Image: 70726f647563742f373739636636383135342e6a...676874.jpg] [Image: imgrc0073205717.jpg?fitin=275:275]


As a final point, the biggest advantage the samurai's tanegashima will have over the Conquistadors' arquebus is the Hayago, basically Japanese paper cartridge. As far as I know, the earliest mention of European paper cartridges come from 1591. The Hayago, on the other hand, was already present at the battle of Nagashino in 1575. This will offer an important fire rate advantage to the samurai.




Quote:The Spanish plate armour would still be more durable.

Ooooooooooooh, boy. Armor. Here we go again, you dirty sons of Queens.

First off, I'm gonna need y'all to give me any reason to believe Spanish plate armor, which wasn't even widespread among the poorer conquistadors (gambeson), will be any better than Japanese tosei gusoku.
[Image: Samurai%20armor%20Kariie%20Saotome%20Ies...2-01-2.jpg] [Image: src_53403212.jpg?1524167454]

[Image: main-qimg-283eddd712055b7faa36fb200cb10f8a.webp] [Image: 5329659552_4cb706dc28_o.jpg]

Now, I'm no retard. I'm not gonna say Tosei gusoku is better than full plate armor, because it isn't. The biggest thing I want to address is the common soldier's armor, and that's Okegawa Do vs partial plate. Notice the lack of limb protection in the spanish partial plate? Compare that to the Ashigaru's Okegawa Do, which has greaves, arm/shoulder guards and mail to protect the limbs.

By the late Sengoku Jidai, samurai armor had mostly switched to the Okegawa Do Tosei Gusoku, which was made of multiple large plates rivetted to each other. Tell me, why would a single plated cuirass be any better than that? If anything, the overlapping plates of Japanese armor seem superior to me.

Quote:The armour won't protect the Spaniard from gunfire every time but it might on some occasions.  I can't remember which battle it was but I read about a battle between Portuguese and Indians (or was it the Ottomans) in the 1500's were the Portuguese armour did quite well against gunfire, if I remember correctly. Then there's that Portuguese captain whose helmet saved in from a headshot by a Japanese musket at Fukuda Bay. I think the Spanish would have had the same or similar armour to the Portuguese since they were close geographically and culturally.  Also, the speed and mobility is in the horse lol.

We have similar accounts in Japan. Nobunaga himself was famously saved from two consecutive gunshots during an assassination attempt. then we have the Tameshi Gusoku, armor worn by the wealthier samurai that was tested prior to combat to see if it was bulletproof.


Quote:I think power is the most important in a battle involving heavily armoured soldiers. Would yumi arrows be able to penetrate the Spanish plate armour? Accuracy and fire rate are important advantages for the yumi but it'd be difficult, though not impossible, to aim at vulnerable points on the enemy in the midst of battle.


The Yumi will have more than enough power. We know from the Hundred Years War that powerful longbows can penetrate plate armor. If English self bows can do it, I see no reason Japanese laminated bows won't. To close this one, a lot of conquistadors would be wearing Gambeson, not plate, contrarily to the almost completely metal-armor equipped Sonae forces of the samurai.


Quote:I see. But the Spanish and Portuguese conquistadors usually defeated the Japanese samurais in gunfights in real life.

They did not. The first battles were before the widespread use of firearms in Japan. Cagayan was not against Samurai. The two later battles was after the warring age of samurai and are highly dubious.


Quote:But the Spanish and Portuguese conquistadors seemed to have literally whooped the samurais in every major battle they fought in real life. Maybe the Spanish/Portuguese armour was really good and/or maybe the Spanish/Portuguese being significantly larger, stronger, perhaps tougher (sailing all across the world in dreadful conditions and fighting all sorts of different warriors across the world would make you tough as nails) on average had something to do with it.

See above

Quote:No doubt Nobunaga is better. But I think Cortes is still a good general, having defeated the rival Spaniards under Narvaez despite being quite badly outnumbered.

He may be good, but Nobunaga was the best. Only two generals were considered his equal in the Sengoku Jidai, and those were "The War God" Usesugi Kenshin, who never lost a single battle in his life, and "The Tiger of Kai" Takeda Shingen, who only lost a single battle in his life and fought Kenshin to a standstill four times. Nobunaga himself only lost two battles in his life (Kanegazaki and Fukushima Castle), one that was likely because one of his generals was the adopted son of his enemy and was unwilling to fight against them and the other which he went back later and destroyed his enemies, literally burning them to the ground. Cortes only ever fought an enemy with similar technological level once.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Kazanshin's post:
  • Lightning
Reply
#8
Quote:As for the snap matchlock's downsides, I don't think they'll come into play a lot. Japanese musketeers tended to have multiple pre-ignited slow-burning fuses in case the original one was extinguished.

That's not surprising, and perhaps even to be expected; I'm sure they very quickly realized the drawback the snap matchlock mechanism held. Still, the fact that there's a very real chance that the original would fail (or pop out of the serpentine's jaws), and therefore require time to be replaced - time in which the musketeer could be seriously harmed or killed by an enemy - suggests a disadvantage on the part of the mechanism to me. I can say in your defense that it's not a particularly long window of opportunity, although it could be lengthened if the user needs to check to see if the replacement itself is still burning well enough to ignite the powder and fire the musket ball.

Quote:Pistol grips, I feel like you're specifically choosing tanegashimas without prominent grips, because they really do exist and can easily be found (maybe only on the Japanese internet, in that case sorry).

I didn't specifically choose them, they were just obvious examples when I googled 'tanegashima teppo'. Okay, I semi-specifically chose the second one, but that was only to get a close-up of the grip. The first example I posted is literally the first image that came up for me, while the second was the first one that specifically focused on the grip. The one you posted on the right honestly does not look that much different from the examples I posted. The second one looks like it has more of a pistol grip (if the relatively short barrel is anything to go by, I'd suspect it's a pistol to begin with) so...I guess? Even if I did go ahead and deem them pistol grips (particularly the first one), they're clearly not as prominent as say, the aforementioned Formosan example, so how much more of an advantage they'd provide is anyone's guess IMO.

Quote:As a final point, the biggest advantage the samurai's tanegashima will have over the Conquistadors' arquebus is the Hayago, basically Japanese paper cartridge. As far as I know, the earliest mention of European paper cartridges come from 1591. The Hayago, on the other hand, was already present at the battle of Nagashino in 1575. This will offer an important fire rate advantage to the samurai.

Wikipedia's page (I'll link it here in case I ever decide I'm interested enough to see further details) actually claims that paper cartridges have been around for nearly as long as hand-held firearms (some sources dating them back to the 14th century), or at least been long used by Neapolitan soldiers by 1597. But I would need to see further details from whatever sources they have. Mind you, it does give the 1591 figure too, so you could be right.

Edit: you're talking about premeasured cartridges, right? According to the handgonne book I mentioned above, these were developed in Europe during the 15th century, at least in some areas.

Quote:An interesting study could be made of the relationship between the crossbow and the handgonne. They are frequently found being used side by side in the chronicles, with the proportion gradually changing in favour of the handgonne. Some writers have speculated that the rapid increase in the strength of the crossbow during the 15th century was due to competition from the handgonne, which modern tests have shown to have had better penetrative power. The crossbow’s draw became stronger, and a weapon that could once be drawn by putting a foot in a stirrup at the end while pulling on the string by hand developed a range of devices to pull heavier and heavier draws, until at last there came the steel crossbow requiring a windlass with hooked cords and double crank-handles called a cranequin. While this arms race increased the crossbow’s ability to penetrate armour, it also slowed down its handling at the very time that handgonners in some areas were being supplied with matchlocks and premeasured cartridges that sped up their reloading. Both weapons required little training, but the handgonne remained the cheaper option and eventually prevailed.
[Image: 9wf8nho.png]
[-] The following 1 user Likes Ausar's post:
  • Kazanshin
Reply
#9
@Kazanshin, welp you win then I guess. Until/unless I find something new to say, lol.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Lightning's post:
  • Kazanshin
Reply
#10
(07-01-2019, 06:01 PM)Lightning Wrote: @Kazanshin, welp you win then I guess. Until/unless I find something new to say, lol.

Holy blaze, I actually won ( ゚д゚) (!?) 

I-I mean, of course! There was no way I would lose, after all! Who am I? I am Kazanshin! Shogun of Carnivora! Fuahahahahaha!
[-] The following 1 user Likes Kazanshin's post:
  • Lightning
Reply
#11
Dudes, I suggest you read a realistic Hernando Cortez bio, he was a a superb general - strategy, tactics & psych - skills.

& for sure, these Iberians were circumnavigating the planet, & no Samurai was doing what Sir Francis Drake did, either.
Reply
#12
Mmmmm...the only thing I want to address now is the whole longbow vs plate armor thing. Of course, plate armor varies in quality, yadayadaya, but:

Quote:Several different experiments using longbows against various thicknesses of steel at various angles have led to controversial results. Some tests indicate that arrows could not penetrate steel armour; other tests suggest they could at least some of the time. Much ink has been spilt debating the veracity of these different experiments, arguing about the draw and weight of the bows used, the types of arrowheads, the types of steel used for the targets and many other factors. What the sum total of these tests shows is that the penetrative effect of a longbow arrow is a debatable point. In the opinion of this author, it appears a rain of longbow arrows would be more distracting and debilitating than deadly, although there would be the occasional casualty due to lucky shots hitting weak points of the armour or less protected spots such as eyeslits or joints. With the number of arrows blackening the air during a classic English archery storm, the number of lucky shots could have been significant indeed. Eyewitness accounts from Agincourt explicitly state that many French were killed or injured by arrows, but how many? What percentage of arrows that hit an armoured man hurt him by penetrating his defences?

Although unanswerable, an argument can be made through negative evidence. Medieval soldiers did not discard their plate, and English-style longbowmen did not become universal in medieval warfare. Therefore the longbow was not the revolutionary weapon historians once thought it was. Fewer tests have been performed on crossbows, and it would be interesting to understand why some armies, particularly the French, favoured this weapon.

Good thing I have good memory (when I need or really want to) and read this a while back. From a big ass PDF on medieval hand gonnes (you can download it for free here).
[Image: 9wf8nho.png]
[-] The following 1 user Likes Ausar's post:
  • Kazanshin
Reply
#13
Just to make this sure, I'm in no way suggesting Yumi arrows will go around destroying plate armor left and right. More often than not, they'll be deflected, which is why by the end of the Sengoku Jidai muskets were preferred over bows, just like how muskets were preferred over bows and crossbows in Europe.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Kazanshin's post:
  • Ausar
Reply
#14
(07-01-2019, 06:23 PM)Kazanshin Wrote:
(07-01-2019, 06:01 PM)Lightning Wrote: @Kazanshin, welp you win then I guess. Until/unless I find something new to say, lol.

Holy blaze, I actually won ( ゚д゚) (!?) 

I-I mean, of course! There was no way I would lose, after all! Who am I? I am Kazanshin! Shogun of Carnivora! Fuahahaha-

[Image: 6168e6e3ec2564c9e3cc21130683b7f9fc902dd1_hq.gif]

[Image: tumblr_npugofLEAT1sh11j9o3_500.gif]

...

Nah man I am joking, I don't know who to favor.
<br>
[-] The following 3 users Like Aztec's post:
  • Drassodes, Kazanshin, Lightning
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)