japanese over head draw
Hi all
in a continuity to a previous thread about the reconstructed vs unbroken line of transition in archery, i came to think about the traditional Kyoto style over head draw, and its combative origin.
when looking upon Japanese archery ,and admiring the fact that it is one of the more intact traditions of archery in Asia (along with the Korean one), it has been commented before ,that nothing guaranty us that the drawing method we see in modern Kyodo is the one used during ,for example, the mongol invasions.
the second thing is ,the fact that the famous long Kyodo bow, was not the only bow in the Japanese arsenal of war, naming at list the Hankyu short bow, and although ive searched the net for artistic depiction of short bows being used ,i couldn't find any. one can argue that it was less common, or was less suitable for any combative situation above ambush or skirmishes, (because of low poundage ?) ,but the fact is that those bows where at use by certain time, for certain purposes.
when i studied archery ,my teacher taught me the basic of ceremonial Kyodo, using a yumi, as well as Japanese short bow archery, that he claimed that origins from ambush techniques, for short range shooting.
The main thing is ,that the type of drawing we used, for the short bow, was still the over head draw, that is raising the bow over head, and pushing the bow forward, the body posture was different from the kyudo pasture, by the bending of knees, and directing the left foot to the target.
my final question is, is the overhead drawing make sense from a combative point of view? , i feel that sometime its easyer to draw a bow that way ,using the skeletal structure, instead of pure muscles, but it still takes more time to complete the draw.
in a continuity to a previous thread about the reconstructed vs unbroken line of transition in archery, i came to think about the traditional Kyoto style over head draw, and its combative origin.
when looking upon Japanese archery ,and admiring the fact that it is one of the more intact traditions of archery in Asia (along with the Korean one), it has been commented before ,that nothing guaranty us that the drawing method we see in modern Kyodo is the one used during ,for example, the mongol invasions.
the second thing is ,the fact that the famous long Kyodo bow, was not the only bow in the Japanese arsenal of war, naming at list the Hankyu short bow, and although ive searched the net for artistic depiction of short bows being used ,i couldn't find any. one can argue that it was less common, or was less suitable for any combative situation above ambush or skirmishes, (because of low poundage ?) ,but the fact is that those bows where at use by certain time, for certain purposes.
when i studied archery ,my teacher taught me the basic of ceremonial Kyodo, using a yumi, as well as Japanese short bow archery, that he claimed that origins from ambush techniques, for short range shooting.
The main thing is ,that the type of drawing we used, for the short bow, was still the over head draw, that is raising the bow over head, and pushing the bow forward, the body posture was different from the kyudo pasture, by the bending of knees, and directing the left foot to the target.
my final question is, is the overhead drawing make sense from a combative point of view? , i feel that sometime its easyer to draw a bow that way ,using the skeletal structure, instead of pure muscles, but it still takes more time to complete the draw.
Ive seen photos of the short war bows for sale at several auctions houses, generally accompanied by stands and arrows. It is charateristic the recurved (very) siyahs:tips, almost spiral. Shouldnt be very difficult to locate some of those pics...
Ive seen actual pictures of thoese bows, and they are not dificult to find:
http://www.japaneseweapons.net/yumiya/yumi/english.htm
But these are Tokugawa period bows, and might have been used for ceremonial purpesses, as the Tokugawa era was an age of internal peace. What im really looking for is evidence of the usage of those bows in the decades previous of the tokugawa age, and the combative drawing method of the short bows as well as the yumi bows.
http://www.japaneseweapons.net/yumiya/yumi/english.htm
But these are Tokugawa period bows, and might have been used for ceremonial purpesses, as the Tokugawa era was an age of internal peace. What im really looking for is evidence of the usage of those bows in the decades previous of the tokugawa age, and the combative drawing method of the short bows as well as the yumi bows.
Got you, very interesting question...
But as you say, reminiscenses might possibly left over because they were ceremonial artifacts and very expensive:rare pieces which were stored in the warlords dependences, rather than mass produced (careful with the interpretation of mass produced) military equipment...
Very interesting question...
But as you say, reminiscenses might possibly left over because they were ceremonial artifacts and very expensive:rare pieces which were stored in the warlords dependences, rather than mass produced (careful with the interpretation of mass produced) military equipment...
Very interesting question...
I remember reading some people much more educated than me talking upon the subject
http://198.170.107.188/phpBB2/viewtopic ... ight=#6915
http://198.170.107.188/phpBB2/viewtopic ... ight=#6915
Thank you for the link...its intersting to see ,that even tough this is a short bow, the grip is still useally on the lower third...do you think it again indicates a ceremonial purpose?
The overhead draw where the bow is brought straight above the head is termed Shomen and it is often associated with Ogasawara Ryu (ceremonial based ryuha). Takeda Ryu (famous for battlefield horse archery) bring their bow up canted sideways downwards and is termed Shamen. From a combative point of a view, it might be too slow and leave you open up for too long (you could do very quickly though) or if you are shooting at a place with a low roof there might not be even clearance to lift the bow up, but body mechanics wise, it is more muscle efficient, because bringing the bow up and then coming to full draw, allows you to use your shoulder muscles better for leverage.
In Kyushu, Miyazaki Prefecture, Izumi town there is a koryu archery ryuha named Satsuma Heki Ryu, practiced by Shimazu han, which does a form of group tactic archery using an alternating-volley formation to pressure the enemy with a constant stream of arrows. Not sure, if their policy of admittance is changed, but at least during 1999, you need to be at least 5 dan in modern kyudo before being considered entry into their ryuha.
You can see the video of this ryuha here ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhJotVk7 ... 2&index=11 ) & ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bSxuQ5ahRJ4 )
From memory this is what I remember about their tactical formation. When the distance of the enemy force was less than 45 meters, the archers will fire from the sitting position (Koshiya), where alternate line of archer fire and advance, keeping up a constant stream of arrows. (i.e 1st line fire, 2nd line move up with arrows nock, rinse and repeat). When melee range was reached, the archer will use their bows like spears where the tip was fixed with some metal spear point. (In the video you can see them ?stabbing? with their bows in the end, the training suppose to reflect that). This school formation was derived apparently from French musketeers.
What is different about Satsuma Heki Ryu battlefield archery in the old days compared to others is, even the highest warriors were made to train in this method, while in other feudal domains only the lowest foot soldiers (ashigaru) train this way. The formation is considered unique to this ryuha because it is regulated, unlike other schools which shoot randomly even although their troops are in formation.
If you notice they do not bring up their bow above their heads either in Shomen or Shamen style. However, it must be noted that even the Satsuma Heki Ryu uses a modernized draw. (Most people get caught up seeing the armor and because it is a koryu think it is 100% like the old days) Also in their performance, they are wearing what is called eboshi and not Kabuto, otherwise it will not be possible to draw the bow that way.
I think kyudo done in modern times (even the koryu archery schools) is not 100% the same as Japanese archery during that era of the Mongol invasion. Why do I suggest this?
1. In the days when warriors used Kabuto (helmets) in battle, the side flaps of the helmet (fukikaeshi) will prevent drawing past the ear. Many koryu archery ryu, have also acknowledge that the draw in kyudo now is longer than previously. I also wonder how close the string can be position to the face if one is wearing a kabuto. If you tried wearing one, you will find you face ?recessed? in the helmet, and the side panels (fukikaeshi) sweeping backwards.
2. The Japanese bows during the mongol invasion was also not as powerful. I?m not sure during that period what the construction was (maruki, fusedake or sanmaiuchi), but they are definitely more inferior to the Higo (cross laminated bows) yumi which are stronger. Technique often changes with advances in gear.
3. In general the Japanese culture often have a tendency to homogenization, and with increase communications and infrastructure it is easier for things to blend together. Modern Kyudo which exist alongside Koryu kyudo have even ?bleed? their national modernized forms into the old traditions, I?m guessing overtime since the modern dan rankings are given according to standarised kyudo standards, trainess have to learn the modern forms anyway. If anything is done long enough it gets assimilated. Yugaeri (the spinning of the bow after shooting around the hand such that the string touches your back wrist) was never done during Sengoku Jidai, but now if you don?t do this your kyudo technique is thought to be ?very bad? or ?the string will hit your face?. In the past war bow strings were black lacquer called nuritsuru and others had additional silk wrapping along the entire length (i.e menosekitsuru). In modern kyudo, the sound of the strings during release is very important and how good you are in kyudo is even judged by this ?sound?. Experienced kyudo practioners even purposely use thin strings on heavy bows to produce a ?good sound?. To me, it seems so counter-productive, to the bow as war weapon. Then again, modern Japanese archery has diverged very far from their battlefield mindset, to one on form and looking good (according to modern Japanese standards).
Whilst saying all this, I would like to add a caveat, which, is even within the same era, there are slight variations according to instructors (just like in modern times where each instructor tell you something different from the other, i.e how to breath, how to position hands e.t.c). So, I think there is no across the board homogenous style of Japanese style archery during the Mongol invasion. To get a homogenous style of any system (archery or anything) relies a lot on good logistics, (trainings associations, good traveling, communication infrastructure, funding *cough*, e.t.c ) back then when its either horseback or foot, I doubt, if things can really be homogenous.
Heki Danjo Masatsugu (some say he is a legend not a real person), who is believe to the person where all Kyujutsu ryuha derived from, have been drawn in pictures showing him drawing arrows to the chest and chin. Then again, like in my previous post about modern forms vs traditional transmitted forms post, I personally put little faith in drawing accurate information from artwork because of ?artistic license?. Artist, even if told how to draw something often put in their own interpretation. I think there are cases where artists have drawn something historically wrong and people has taken it as truth (I think this happen in the context of some turkish archery works). But, what can a modern researcher do, but rely on such pictures, sculptures. I guess, when citing all these ancient pictures or sculptures, be careful about taking them as absolute truth. Its not like in modern times where you can go ?photo or it didn?t happen?.
Another point to bear in mind when comparing the Mongol invasion of Japan is that during that invasion the percentage of mongols making up the invasion force was very small. According to some notes I made to myself many many years ago when I was just starting to be interested in medieval warfare and very amateurish in taking notes, I jotted down the point ?the invasion army was made up of conscripts from China, Koreans few turks and some Russians according to according to Turkish documents? Unfortunately, I did not wrote down what Turkish documents I was referring to. I think because the Mongols were not sailors and were primary, steepe people whose horseback archery tactics work best in open plains, and were unfamiliar with launching an amphibious assault and sent those within their conscript army (Chinese, Koreans or whoever they) who were more familiar with such tactics.
In Kyushu, Miyazaki Prefecture, Izumi town there is a koryu archery ryuha named Satsuma Heki Ryu, practiced by Shimazu han, which does a form of group tactic archery using an alternating-volley formation to pressure the enemy with a constant stream of arrows. Not sure, if their policy of admittance is changed, but at least during 1999, you need to be at least 5 dan in modern kyudo before being considered entry into their ryuha.
You can see the video of this ryuha here ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhJotVk7 ... 2&index=11 ) & ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bSxuQ5ahRJ4 )
From memory this is what I remember about their tactical formation. When the distance of the enemy force was less than 45 meters, the archers will fire from the sitting position (Koshiya), where alternate line of archer fire and advance, keeping up a constant stream of arrows. (i.e 1st line fire, 2nd line move up with arrows nock, rinse and repeat). When melee range was reached, the archer will use their bows like spears where the tip was fixed with some metal spear point. (In the video you can see them ?stabbing? with their bows in the end, the training suppose to reflect that). This school formation was derived apparently from French musketeers.
What is different about Satsuma Heki Ryu battlefield archery in the old days compared to others is, even the highest warriors were made to train in this method, while in other feudal domains only the lowest foot soldiers (ashigaru) train this way. The formation is considered unique to this ryuha because it is regulated, unlike other schools which shoot randomly even although their troops are in formation.
If you notice they do not bring up their bow above their heads either in Shomen or Shamen style. However, it must be noted that even the Satsuma Heki Ryu uses a modernized draw. (Most people get caught up seeing the armor and because it is a koryu think it is 100% like the old days) Also in their performance, they are wearing what is called eboshi and not Kabuto, otherwise it will not be possible to draw the bow that way.
I think kyudo done in modern times (even the koryu archery schools) is not 100% the same as Japanese archery during that era of the Mongol invasion. Why do I suggest this?
1. In the days when warriors used Kabuto (helmets) in battle, the side flaps of the helmet (fukikaeshi) will prevent drawing past the ear. Many koryu archery ryu, have also acknowledge that the draw in kyudo now is longer than previously. I also wonder how close the string can be position to the face if one is wearing a kabuto. If you tried wearing one, you will find you face ?recessed? in the helmet, and the side panels (fukikaeshi) sweeping backwards.
2. The Japanese bows during the mongol invasion was also not as powerful. I?m not sure during that period what the construction was (maruki, fusedake or sanmaiuchi), but they are definitely more inferior to the Higo (cross laminated bows) yumi which are stronger. Technique often changes with advances in gear.
3. In general the Japanese culture often have a tendency to homogenization, and with increase communications and infrastructure it is easier for things to blend together. Modern Kyudo which exist alongside Koryu kyudo have even ?bleed? their national modernized forms into the old traditions, I?m guessing overtime since the modern dan rankings are given according to standarised kyudo standards, trainess have to learn the modern forms anyway. If anything is done long enough it gets assimilated. Yugaeri (the spinning of the bow after shooting around the hand such that the string touches your back wrist) was never done during Sengoku Jidai, but now if you don?t do this your kyudo technique is thought to be ?very bad? or ?the string will hit your face?. In the past war bow strings were black lacquer called nuritsuru and others had additional silk wrapping along the entire length (i.e menosekitsuru). In modern kyudo, the sound of the strings during release is very important and how good you are in kyudo is even judged by this ?sound?. Experienced kyudo practioners even purposely use thin strings on heavy bows to produce a ?good sound?. To me, it seems so counter-productive, to the bow as war weapon. Then again, modern Japanese archery has diverged very far from their battlefield mindset, to one on form and looking good (according to modern Japanese standards).
Whilst saying all this, I would like to add a caveat, which, is even within the same era, there are slight variations according to instructors (just like in modern times where each instructor tell you something different from the other, i.e how to breath, how to position hands e.t.c). So, I think there is no across the board homogenous style of Japanese style archery during the Mongol invasion. To get a homogenous style of any system (archery or anything) relies a lot on good logistics, (trainings associations, good traveling, communication infrastructure, funding *cough*, e.t.c ) back then when its either horseback or foot, I doubt, if things can really be homogenous.
Heki Danjo Masatsugu (some say he is a legend not a real person), who is believe to the person where all Kyujutsu ryuha derived from, have been drawn in pictures showing him drawing arrows to the chest and chin. Then again, like in my previous post about modern forms vs traditional transmitted forms post, I personally put little faith in drawing accurate information from artwork because of ?artistic license?. Artist, even if told how to draw something often put in their own interpretation. I think there are cases where artists have drawn something historically wrong and people has taken it as truth (I think this happen in the context of some turkish archery works). But, what can a modern researcher do, but rely on such pictures, sculptures. I guess, when citing all these ancient pictures or sculptures, be careful about taking them as absolute truth. Its not like in modern times where you can go ?photo or it didn?t happen?.
Another point to bear in mind when comparing the Mongol invasion of Japan is that during that invasion the percentage of mongols making up the invasion force was very small. According to some notes I made to myself many many years ago when I was just starting to be interested in medieval warfare and very amateurish in taking notes, I jotted down the point ?the invasion army was made up of conscripts from China, Koreans few turks and some Russians according to according to Turkish documents? Unfortunately, I did not wrote down what Turkish documents I was referring to. I think because the Mongols were not sailors and were primary, steepe people whose horseback archery tactics work best in open plains, and were unfamiliar with launching an amphibious assault and sent those within their conscript army (Chinese, Koreans or whoever they) who were more familiar with such tactics.
Thank you for your replay, very wise-ing indeed.
I would like to have references, if possible, ive seen some good books about japanese warfare, but none of them went into to much details regurding archery, for some odd reason.
Cheers
I would like to have references, if possible, ive seen some good books about japanese warfare, but none of them went into to much details regurding archery, for some odd reason.
Cheers
I still remember that frame from Kuroshawa's RAN film, in which the war Lord shoots an arrow with his Yumi bow to defend his servant, from a narrow window...that doesnt seem credible to me. I need to admit to myself that there had to be instances during a siege to a fortified place, the archers needed to make use of more handy weapons rather than a Yumi. However, still not clear to me why the layout of the Yumi is transpositioned to the shorther bow style...the two thirds for the grip is still there...as Althshuller (pitifully father of the ruskii bomb) pointed out time ago, when developing his systematized way of solving problems, it might have to do with the material - boo in this case- which is stronger on the root side than on the tips...just talking out loud.
I reckon that xbows without a pavese were not very effective in the open field (sorry if this contradicts a topic recently brought to attention from Kviljo chu-ko-nu xbow, and some pictures posted after by Mr. Shelby, Mr. Farrell, etc if I dont misrecall, chinese warfare), therefore, besides a ceremonial purpose...what about weapons to defend from a siege?
Sorry for historical contradictions, inaccuracies and errors.
I reckon that xbows without a pavese were not very effective in the open field (sorry if this contradicts a topic recently brought to attention from Kviljo chu-ko-nu xbow, and some pictures posted after by Mr. Shelby, Mr. Farrell, etc if I dont misrecall, chinese warfare), therefore, besides a ceremonial purpose...what about weapons to defend from a siege?
Sorry for historical contradictions, inaccuracies and errors.
In Kyudo when the bow is held above the head it is gripped from the side and the string pulled sideways rather sharply. The bow is specially made for this operation; something that hardly any other bow could stand. I find the bow can also be shot successfully in a western manner.
I refletched some old Japanese war arrows and they were 34 3/8 inch shafts; quite different than modern kyudo equipment. The old arrows had self nocks and often heavy points.
As for accepting artwork, I have come full circle. The artist is much closer to the subject than most of us and I expect a learned explanation when one says that I should not accept a certain piece of work.
I refletched some old Japanese war arrows and they were 34 3/8 inch shafts; quite different than modern kyudo equipment. The old arrows had self nocks and often heavy points.
As for accepting artwork, I have come full circle. The artist is much closer to the subject than most of us and I expect a learned explanation when one says that I should not accept a certain piece of work.
Mr Farrell,
In Spain, Belgium, and almost elsewhere in Europe we have castles, and even monasteries with those narrow windows intended to shoot arrows to the assailants, in spain we actually use the term 'ventana saetera' to refer to small windows. It is not the style of shooting, it is the bow itself that doesnt fit in the picture...assuming the short bows were used in siege situations - which s my point here - ... due to the layout of fortifications and the situation itself, stress, lack of space...
In Spain, Belgium, and almost elsewhere in Europe we have castles, and even monasteries with those narrow windows intended to shoot arrows to the assailants, in spain we actually use the term 'ventana saetera' to refer to small windows. It is not the style of shooting, it is the bow itself that doesnt fit in the picture...assuming the short bows were used in siege situations - which s my point here - ... due to the layout of fortifications and the situation itself, stress, lack of space...
Outlaw; Well, I see your point. I was just saying that a yumi and a war bow differ. They also had castles to defend in Japan but it is out of my speciality how these were defended. Nor were cross bows popular there.
Having used a lot of bamboo, I find the argument that it is stouter on the bottom nonsensical since the shorter limb must be the less massive.
Having used a lot of bamboo, I find the argument that it is stouter on the bottom nonsensical since the shorter limb must be the less massive.
Mr Farrell, the fact that the lower limb is the ess massive doesnt imply is the less stiffer of them both...does this make sense, taking into account the plant characteristics?
I always thought that the shorter limb had to do with the kneeled (or one knee stance) position from which the the japanese military archers shoot, even in the battlefield. Days ago someone posted a link to a video from the beggining of the XXth century? or so, in which one can see the convenience of the shorter limb. For horse hunting:shooting, it is evident the direction this conversation would go.
Changes in warfare tactics often lead to technical variations in the weaponry used...transition from a batallion/per function war style to a more mobile/guerrilla modus in which the soldier carries different equipment to adapt to the situation...would it make sense? Or even in a maritime battle scene...perhaps?
I always thought that the shorter limb had to do with the kneeled (or one knee stance) position from which the the japanese military archers shoot, even in the battlefield. Days ago someone posted a link to a video from the beggining of the XXth century? or so, in which one can see the convenience of the shorter limb. For horse hunting:shooting, it is evident the direction this conversation would go.
Changes in warfare tactics often lead to technical variations in the weaponry used...transition from a batallion/per function war style to a more mobile/guerrilla modus in which the soldier carries different equipment to adapt to the situation...would it make sense? Or even in a maritime battle scene...perhaps?
I found a post...might be related to the point made about the shortbows initiated by Bekn
http://198.170.107.188/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1744
http://198.170.107.188/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1744