[JB_Xyooj]

Quote

Battle of Sacheon
Main article Battle of Sacheon (1598)

During the winter of 1597, the Chinese and Korean allies repelled the Japanese forces from reaching Hansung (present-day Seoul). Now there was no hope for the Japanese to conquer the Korean peninsula; therefore, Japanese forces began to prepare to retreat. From the beginning of spring in 1598, the Korean forces and 100,000 Chinese soldiers prepared to retake castles on the coastal areas. The Wanli Emperor of China sent a fleet under the artillery expert Chen Lin in May 1598; this naval force saw action in joint exercises with the Koreans against the Japanese navy. And in June 1598, under Commander Konishi Yukinage's warning of the dire situations in the campaign, withdrew 70,000 troops and left 60,000 -mostly Satsuma warriors under Shimazu clan commanders[citation needed]. The remaining Japanese forces fought desperately, turning back Chinese attacks on Suncheon and Sacheon as the Ming army amassed more troops to prepare for a final assault.

The Chinese believed that Sacheon was crucial in their program to retake the lost castles. Although the Chinese were ascendant initially, the tide of the battle turned when Japanese reinforcements attacked the rear of the Chinese army and the Japanese soldiers inside the fortress counter-attacked through the gates[citation needed]. The Chinese forces retreated with 30,000 losses[citation needed].

http://en.wikipedia....ttle_of_Sacheon

From what it seems, and what is read... **Not saying that this is the only refrence.**

It seems as so that the Ming Military substained a devastating defeat during the battle of Sacheon in Korea.... with a casualtie of 30,000 Men....

As soo It seems from what I read about this War... It wasn't that of The Chinese that gave the Korean The advatage... Neither way.. It seems so as if the Japanese had a more advatage at land... against Both Chinese, and Korean Co-Opted forces.... What lead the Japanese to its defeat in both Imjin War, was the destruction of the Japanese Naval at the hands of the Korean naval Commander Yi. And the lack of supplies and reinforcement.

But feel free to post opinion on this thread...
I want to hear your point of view on this war.

This post has been edited by Yun: 26 July 2006 - 02:49 AM

[caocao74]

I'm gradually coming arounfd to Conan's way of thinking in regard to Yi. He was a good naval commander (when his government let him get his job done) but overall he is portrayed as the more visible image of Korean resistance to Japanese aggression. Compared to Yi, little credit is given to the populist armies led by local officials and Buddhist abbots.

[ih8eurocentrix]

How did the Samurai fight, in formation?
How were the ming formations

[caocao74]

By the mid- to late-16th Century, retainers and vassals provided numbers & types of troops (yari-ashigaru, teppo-ashigaru, samurai, &c) dependent upon their koku value (one koku = rice for one man for one year, and a daimyo would need a minimum of 10,000 koku). Once in battle these clan-based hosts could operate independently if large enough, or be broken up into larger units of the same type (e.g Oda's combined teppo force at Nagashino in 1575).

[JB_Xyooj]

caocao74, on Jul 22 2006, 04:59 AM, said:

I'm gradually coming arounfd to Conan's way of thinking in regard to Yi. He was a good naval commander (when his government let him get his job done) but overall he is portrayed as the more visible image of Korean resistance to Japanese aggression. Compared to Yi, little credit is given to the populist armies led by local officials and Buddhist abbots.

Well they did mention in the article that Buddhist Monks armed militia, and resistance forces in the south dealing critical blow to the Japanese....
In the second Imijin war, Yi was inprison for disobeying direct order from his government to intercept a faked Japanese Lure.

This post has been edited by JB_Xyooj: 23 July 2006 - 08:31 PM

[ih8eurocentrix]

did all samurai use Katanas as a primary weapon, Did they all have flags attached to their backs and attack in formations?

[caocao74]

JB_Xyooj, on Jul 24 2006, 10:29 AM, said:

Well they did mention in the article that Buddhist Monks armed militia, and resistance forces in the south dealing critical blow to the Japanese....
In the second Imijin war, Yi was inprison for disobeying direct order from his government to intercept a faked Japanese Lure.

Yes, they are mentioned, but in Korea (if you've been there) how many statues can you see to the Buddhist militias?? Not many whereas Yi can be found virtually everywhere and the Turtle-Ship is known to all.

[caocao74]

ih8eurocentrix, on Jul 24 2006, 01:33 PM, said:

did all samurai use Katanas as a primary weapon, Did they all have flags attached to their backs and attack in formations?

During the Sengokujidai and the Invasions of Korea, the primary weapon of samurai was the yari (spear/polearm). Katana were carried, and some samurai used teppo but on the whole the sword was carried but of secondary importance in massed-battle.

In battle samurai and ashigaru wore on their backs sashimono.

[JB_Xyooj]

ih8eurocentrix, on Jul 23 2006, 11:33 PM, said:

did all samurai use Katanas as a primary weapon, Did they all have flags attached to their backs and attack in formations?

Samurai mainly used spears as Caocao has pointed out, during the sengoku era, and Many samurai battles were fought with Peasants.... afterall they did make up the main core of the samurai regiment...

and from as I seen it, not all samurai had flag attached to their backs.... and the whole armor thing... is kind of over play, majority of samurai mostly fought with a sword, spear, with a body armor and thats basicly it... either they had a white headband attach to the head or not.

And during the Korean Invasion, Majority of the samurai regiment fought with the Aquabrusier, aka the Muskettes.... swords and spear after all were melee weapons, But majority of the time the Samurai Gun regiment did most of the work.

[JB_Xyooj]

caocao74, on Jul 24 2006, 05:41 AM, said:

Yes, they are mentioned, but in Korea (if you've been there) how many statues can you see to the Buddhist militias?? Not many whereas Yi can be found virtually everywhere and the Turtle-Ship is known to all.

Their truth to that, but its not like they go without acknowledgement, but one thing did bother me though
The Japanese could had combantant the Korean Turtle ship with their own Iron Clad ship as well... from what I researched up lately it seems that the late Nobunaga had some of the Iron Clad in Japan as well.

But Toyotomi never used it.... I did remeber reading something reguarding Toyotomi having some sort of mental challenge issue....

http://www.answers.com/topic/atakebune

Quote

Atakebune were large Japanese warships of the 16th and 17th centuries.

Japan undertook major naval building efforts in the 16th century, during the Warring States period, when feudal rulers vying for supremacy built vast coastal navies of several hundred ships. The largest of these ships were called Atakebune. (安宅船).

Around that time, Japan seems to have developed the one of the first ironclad warships in history [1], when Oda Nobunaga, a Japanese daimyo, had six iron-covered Ōatakebune (大安宅船) made in 1576. These ships were called "Tekkōsen" (鉄甲船, literally "iron armored ships") and were armed with multiple cannons and large-caliber rifles to defeat the large, but not iron-covered, vessels the enemy used. He defeated Mori's navy with them at the mouth of the Kizu River, Osaka in 1578 in a successful naval blockade.

These ships may be regarded as floating fortresses rather

This post has been edited by JB_Xyooj: 24 July 2006 - 12:05 PM

[Tibet Libre]

The question is where and why the Korean turtle ships were iron clad? If their roofs were covered with iron instead of mere wood, then it only offered additional protection against fire missilies, not against cannon shots, and not even against the process of boarding. And if only the protuding spikes were made out of iron, then the dmilitary value of the used iron is even more ephemeral, since you could the same job with less costly wooden spikes.

[JB_Xyooj]

Tibet Libre, on Jul 24 2006, 12:22 PM, said:

The question is where and why the Korean turtle ships were iron clad? If their roofs were covered with iron instead of mere wood, then it only offered additional protection against fire missilies, not against cannon shots, and not even against the process of boarding. And if only the protuding spikes were made out of iron, then the dmilitary value of the used iron is even more ephemeral, since you could the same job with less costly wooden spikes.

Ya know... I never really thought of that... Please do educate me on the situation
and what you just said.

[Tibet Libre]

JB_Xyooj, on Jul 24 2006, 12:47 PM, said:

Ya know... I never really thought of that... Please do educate me on the situation
and what you just said.

I am not Horatio Nelson, but I would say there are three modes of employment for iron coverings on such a wooden sailing ship as the Turtle Ship was:

1. To protect the hull below the waterline from premature rotting, mussles and certain kinds of worms which eat the wood

2. To protect the hull above the waterline from enemy cannon fire

3. To protect the roof from enemy marines boarding or missile fire

(4. To strengthen the ram if existing)

Iron-clads in the conventional sense (from the 1850s onwards) are meant to fulfill task 2. The question is now what was the iron good for on the turtle ships? Since the Japanese way of fighting was boarding and not cannonades, I assume it must have been task 3. But since you can prevent enemy marines from boarding also quite good with a solid oak roof and wooden spikes protuding from it, I do not quite see why the Koreans put in additional labour and costs for iron coverings. The only real advantage of an iron roof is against fire arrows, grenades or flame-throwers, but has this been really worth the additional effort? Even if so, it can hardly be the decisive factor in the sea battles. Something is IMO not sound with the theory of the 'iron-clad' ship.

[Non-Han Nan Ban]

Tibet Libre, on Jul 24 2006, 03:54 PM, said:

I am not Horatio Nelson, but I would say there are three modes of employment for iron coverings on such a wooden sailing ship as the Turtle Ship was:

1. To protect the hull below the waterline from premature rotting, mussles and certain kinds of worms which eat the wood

2. To protect the hull above the waterline from enemy cannon fire

3. To protect the roof from enemy marines boarding or missile fire

(4. To strengthen the ram if existing)

Iron-clads in the conventional sense (from the 1850s onwards) are meant to fulfill task 2. The question is now what was the iron good for on the turtle ships? Since the Japanese way of fighting was boarding and not cannonades, I assume it must have been task 3. But since you can prevent enemy marines from boarding also quite good with a solid oak roof and wooden spikes protuding from it, I do not quite see why the Koreans put in additional labour and costs for iron coverings. The only real advantage of an iron roof is against fire arrows, grenades or flame-throwers, but has this been really worth the additional effort? Even if so, it can hardly be the decisive factor in the sea battles. Something is IMO not sound with the theory of the 'iron-clad' ship.

Very good observations. However, even though the Japanese tactics centered largely on boarding enemy vessels (a tactic which the Admiral Yi Sun Sin used to his advantage with longer range cannons than the Japanese could muster), aren't iron-plated sidings more pristine in stopping the bullets of arquebus-rifle fire than wooden sidings are? Correct me if I am mistaken. I say this because the Japanese employed Italian, Portuguese, Spanish, and their own Japanese rifles in not only land tactics like Oda Nobunaga's triple-rotating lines of arquebusiers aided by stockades against cavalry charges, but also used rifles heavily when nearing enemy vessels. Plus, the Japanese were quite adept at lobbing fiery explosives onto enemy ships (when relatively close), and since wood is (obviously) combustible, iron would be a much better option. It also makes sense that these ships would be iron-plated because of their ultimate function in battle: while most of the korean ships would be far at a distance firing longer-range cannon rounds, the Turtle Ship's function was to barge right into enemy lines and disrupt their formations, causing chaos and disunion while firing on all port sides and recieving aid from the korean ships bombarding from far away. The Turtle ships weren't really meant to be long-range fighters, but close-hand-combat vessels that would have to sustain fire attacks from close-by enemy vessels that could have the potential to launch fiery debris and burn them to bits. Therefore, what better implement than to have iron-roofs to deflect such attacks.

This is what I gather from reading about the battles Yi Sun Sin engaged in.

Eric