Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

Can the Japanese LEHI skirmish?

Will Muckel

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 3/28/2005 23:47:20 Central Standard Time,
crzywlf1@... writes:

Can the Japanese LEHI skirmish? >>

Yes. Loose order for all purposes except the combat tables.

J






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I do not claim to be an expert on the Samurai by any stretch, but my
view can be summarised as follows:

1. I do not believe that any armour that heavy in that period was
good enough to offer that degree of protection and allow that much
freedom of movement. It may be a case of excessive romanticisation
of Japanese "technology" and/ or "craftsmanship";

2. I am of the view that with the high morale (no quibble about that)
of the Japanese, treating them as LHI (my preferred classification)
is the way to go - if they get shot up they are still likely to pass
the test and go on to kill with their great weapons. Making them
LEHI stops them from ever being shot up. I don't think that is
right.

3. Keep in mind that this is an army that never fought a series of
battles against anyone other than itself, and never fought even one
battle anything like a fair and open against anyone ever.

I should disclose that I have in the last six months purchased the
lead for a 15mm Feudal Japanese Army - and if I ever take it to a
comp I will go for every advantage I can, including the LEHI. More
likely I will use it for Friday night and club friendlies and see
how they fare as LHI.

Adrian Williams



--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "scsabrecoach"
<scsabrecoach@y...> wrote:
>
> Greetings Adrian,
> LEHI still have all the flaws of loose order. They do move a bit
better than EHI but that was accurate for Samurai.
> TD
>
> --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "Adrian Williams"
<fredthebaddy@h...> wrote:
> >
> > I do not like the whole invention of LEHI - I think it is
> > unnecessary and undesirable.
> >
> > The list rules as such I don't have any problem with.
> >
> > ANW
> >
>

Inserted opinions below :-} This is a bit long, sorry; you have been
warned Also, not trying to bash but you hit on a period that
interests me a great deal and I want to share my opinions and how they
are based on objective facts and studies as well. Sorry for any
spelling errors; wrote this online withou benefit of spellcheck.


Chris Tebo
San Antonio, TX


--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "Adrian Williams"
<fredthebaddy@h...> wrote:
>
> I do not claim to be an expert on the Samurai by any stretch, but my
> view can be summarised as follows:
>
> 1. I do not believe that any armour that heavy in that period was
> good enough to offer that degree of protection and allow that much
> freedom of movement. It may be a case of excessive romanticisation
> of Japanese "technology" and/ or "craftsmanship";

I believe that Greg R. responded to this in part regarding articulated
plate. Okay, I am not an "expert" but I am as close as you will find
short of a degreed medieval Japanese expert or noted authors such as
Stephen Turnbull I am also a martial artist of a combined total of
of over 16 years including Japanese Kendo, Iaido, Shotokan Karate,
Ishin Ryu Karate, Kenseido Karate, Aikido and Judo. My study of
Japanese culture, history and martial practices encompasses in excess
of 20 years. Okay, now that we have this out of the way, my opinions
of Japanese armor :-)

First and foremost, realize that the Japanese culture developed on
virtual isolation and internal warfare. Japan remained essentially
medieval until the arrival of Commodore Perry and his forcing Japan to
open its doors to international trade and influences.
Swords were openly worn in society by the Samurai until the 1876
banning of them during the Meigi restoration. Essentially, Japan's
"Medieval" period stretched from 672 to 1876.

Because of this long history of almost total isolation from the
outside world, armor and hand weapons reached a dizzy height of
perfectionism. Yes, it has been shown that folding of blades did occur
in Europe and especially in Toledo but the refinement of the Japanese
edged blade is considered to be the zenith of sword technology.

The same can be said for articulated and laminated armor of the
Japanese elite warrior class, the Samurai. The treatment of metal with
hardened lacquer and enamels made for armor that withstood bowfire and
bladed weapons easily. The same methods for delivering killing strokes
to Samurai as with a high-medieval knight are present in manuscripts
in Japan. Notedly that either an exposed neck due to a helmet being
dislodge or penetrating the armor at the crotch or armpit areas as
being the only areas that a heavily armored Samurai could be killed.
Articulation of the armor, I hope I can assume, is not in question
here. Further allegorical, historical and artistic evidence also
points to refined armor not being penetrated by bowfire. We are not
speaking of myths and legends but actual historical records, etc.

Not only were the outer lamelar plates extremely strong, but under
garments helped to repel bowfire as well. Metal plates, when hung and
isolated on a tree or other such object can be penetrated by bowfire.
Add padding and have allow the plates to move and arrows do not
penetrate.

Padding has also been shown to improve chainmail in other cultures.
Vikings used a combination of ring and riveted mail. I believe the
history channel had a show that experimented with bowfire and spear
penetration. Spears did not penetrate enough to cause damage, nor did
bowfire.

Also, 20th and I am assuming 21st century historians and researchers
have tested the effectiveness of Japanese armor and have drawn the
same conclusions (armor, swords and other weapons are still in
existance going back to over a 1000 year history as examples). I
wouldn't call this romanticism at all. Note also that chainmail had
been tried and found to be inferior. Large plated armor was found to
be inferior until Dutch and Spanish traders introduced gunpowder in
the mid 1500's caused armor technology to adapt to deflect handguns
(and yes, there are examples of this plate armor withstanding 60
caliber and larger lead balls). Tokugawa closed trade with these
outsiders after rising to power as Shogun.



> 2. I am of the view that with the high morale (no quibble about that)
> of the Japanese, treating them as LHI (my preferred classification)
> is the way to go - if they get shot up they are still likely to pass
> the test and go on to kill with their great weapons. Making them
> LEHI stops them from ever being shot up. I don't think that is
> right.

I see where you are going with this but the point cost addition has
been shown to not be cost effective. See other posts on this army by
searching messages in this group. If this were a "freebee", I would
argue on your side. But the technology has been paid for and I don't
see the arguement as holding up.

LEHI is only for the late period and rightly so as armor had reached a
high level of sophistication and protection by then.

> 3. Keep in mind that this is an army that never fought a series of
> battles against anyone other than itself, and never fought even one
> battle anything like a fair and open against anyone ever.


Well, this is dead wrong I am affraid. Kublai Kahn successfully
invaded Japan. The first time his troops were able to secure outlying
islands. Typhoons (Kamikazis) decimated his forces before conquest of
the main island could take place. His second invasion was stopped
without any successes due to the same fierce storms. It should be
noted that Japanese culture assumed that Japan would lose as land
battles had already proven Japanese troops to be outnumbered and
overwhelmed by the tactics of Kublai Kahn's multinational forces
(Chinese and Korean foot with Mongol cavalry). Japanese troops were
essentially still in the "formal" mode of combat with individual
challenges rather than brigaded units during this time period. Also,
the ammount of troops Japan could muster paled in comparison to the
100,000 invasion force.

Also, Japan successfully invaded and fought in Korea. While this time
period (1592) falls out of the scope of Warrior, essentially the
weapons technology was the same. Primative handguns (1500 in total,
well less than 10% of forces) and single plate chest armor being the
notable weapons technology changes by this time period. Also,
brigading of troops and unit tactics had reached a high level of
sophistication by this point. Two large invasions failed
due to supply line logistical failures; not due to military
battlefield defeats. The Japanese would have faced both Koreans and
Chinese during these campaigns. Also, quoting Turnbull "guns had no
effect (in the 1600 campaign) on the outcome of the battle since the
whole affair took place in pouring rain."


> I should disclose that I have in the last six months purchased the
> lead for a 15mm Feudal Japanese Army - and if I ever take it to a
> comp I will go for every advantage I can, including the LEHI. More
> likely I will use it for Friday night and club friendlies and see
> how they fare as LHI.

Glad to hear this. I have 15mm Japanese too but have not used Japanese
since David Beeson taught me to play 7th edition in 1989. I feel it is
a much better 25mm army at 1600 points due to the current standard of
8' X 5' tables. I still think it is a very viable army in 15mm, just
not a top-tier one in either scale.

But I feel it is more important to play what you have an interest in
rather than solely basing your army choice on it being "top-tier". I
happen to love the Marian and Early Imperial Roman periods and plan to
play them for this reason as well.


> Adrian Williams
>
>
>
> --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "scsabrecoach"
> <scsabrecoach@y...> wrote:
> >
> > Greetings Adrian,
> > LEHI still have all the flaws of loose order. They do move a bit
> better than EHI but that was accurate for Samurai.
> > TD
> >
> > --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "Adrian Williams"
> <fredthebaddy@h...> wrote:
> > >
> > > I do not like the whole invention of LEHI - I think it is
> > > unnecessary and undesirable.
> > >
> > > The list rules as such I don't have any problem with.
> > >
> > > ANW
> > >
> >
>