I think that the defences used in this period should not be Barricades, as per the army lists, but would better fit the description of Obstacles under the rules.
My understanding is that the majority of field defences were designed to break up charges rather than give any protection against missiles.
Most manufacturers sell either wooden pavaises or bamboo bundles strapped together as such. As far as I am aware these were really only deployed during sieges rather than in battlefield conditions.
Battlefield defences to my mind looked more like a tall post and rail fence with a large gap at the mid point - see the illustration here:
https://weaponsandwarfare.com/2018/11/21/firepower-the-battle-of-nagashino/
This would clearly not give any significant defence against missiles and in particular teppo.
What do you think?
I must admit that this is not really my period and I have been guided by others.
Richard
Sorry if I am doing a bit of necromancy here by reviving the post, but I do not see a reason to make another while talking on the same subject.
I have been researching Japanese armies of the late Sengoku to Early Edo periods (= 1530-1600 CE), which are basically covered by Book 72 – Japan.
Especially, I was perplexed by the possibility for these lists to equip most of their infantry (except samurai on foot) with
Barricades, which strikes me as possibly an inaccurate depiction of what they were using.
I think history would be better served by replacing
Barricades by
Obstacles, for the following reasons:
- The use of such light and movable field obstacles is documented for a long period.
- The lists in Book 46 – Land of the Samurai reflect this by having Obstacles as mandatory or optional characteristic for all Japanese-mainland armies (4602, 4603, 4605, 4608), with the surprising exception of 4607 (Kamakura Japanese 1180-1334 CE) which replaces them with Barricades, while the next 4608 (Muromachi Samurai 1335-1500 CE) partly goes back to Obstacles.
- The battles that took place in 16th-century Japan are well documented with detailed accounts, meticulous reenactements (such as the one of the famous 1575 Nagashino battle (https://intl.okuminavi.jp/upload/spot_languages/large/13203235265dfafe3e7bcdc.jpg) where the Oda army broke the back of the Takeda cavalry with arquebus fire and ingenious use of field works such as these (https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-8d6440355ab558652fbce3d3c8568009-lq), these (https://yesterdayunhinged.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/naga1.jpg?w=640) or these (https://i0.wp.com/larevuedhistoiremilitaire.fr/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Bab%C5%8Dsaku.jpg?resize=720%2C540&ssl=1)), and also books, including these two (https://www.karwansaraypublishers.com/products/samurai), which I have compulsed and which document the lightness of these works.
- These books also emphasize that Japanese warfare put a deliberate emphasis on mobile warfare and movement, also in sieges, and even from besieged defenders, the idea being to use any possibility to draw the enemy in a fight; this does not suit well with Barricades IMO.
- This is also reinforced by the existence, for us wargamers, of miniatures of such obstacles by Baueda (https://www.baueda.com/hop6.html).
Furthermore, game-wise, I have never yet seen a late Japanese army with
Barricades, maybe the hefty cost and immobility discourage players where
Obstacles might not.
For all these reasons, I think it would be historically accurate to replace
Barricades with
Obstacles in all Japanese lists where they happen, that is:
- 4605 Heian Japanese (although keep it for conscripts and artillery)
- 4607 Kamakura Japanese
- 4608 Muromachi Samurai
- 7201 Sengoku Japanese
- 7202 Nobunaga Japanese
- 7203 Takeda Japanese
I think there is something in Princeps' comments. Nagashino is perhaps the most famous example of field defences being used in the Sengoku period and these were bamboo lattice-work fences. While certainly an obstacle in melee, they would not have provided a lot of cover from shooting, especially from arquebus fire. That said, while moveable, they are not as light and mobile as stakes or caltrops. However, on balance I agree that the bamboo 'palisades' such as those used at Nagashino, would be better classified as obstacles than barricades. Perhaps the option to use barricades or obstacles might be a solution and also account for those times when more substantial defences such as heavy wooden 'pavises' were used?
I'll make the changes for the 2024 lists.
Because of the scoring system of MeG - anything defensive such as Barricades or Obstacles is unlikely to do well. That is intentional. They do however offer quite a lot of scope for interesting scenario games.
Richard
I agree that Obstacles better simulate the Nagashino fences.
However, the Japanese also used wooden Pavises, maybe an option as well to consider?
I know that they did in early periods, and it's reflected for that time by the rule Pavise in Yamato Japanese (4602), Heishi Militia (4603), Heian Japanese (4605), Muromachi Samurai (4608).
Will check some sources at home tonight about fire-protecting screens in later periods though. If you have some, I am interested in reading them.
Best,
Antoine
check out the Genkō Bōrui, build to repel the Mongols. Also Bamboo and wax wood are very light and could stop a Ya from 55kg Yumi's which is more than cast iron can. The lattice work Bamboo frames where often covered in Wax wood stick bundles, to allow Yumi and Yari to fight from behind. Also a lot of the stone walls where made from Volcanic Stone which also very light.
Wax wood stick bundles are sometimes called straw sticks. BTW has a toxin in them :)
Maybe the best option would be to allow either/or
Here is an example of a bamboo frame with "Straw", also part of the Oskar campaign showing earth banks build up to fight from behind
[attachment deleted by admin]
Thanks for the information. Happy to allow Barricades with the option of Obstacles.
Richard
I think that's the best option Richard.
Quote from: lionheartrjc on October 22, 2023, 05:54:29 AM
Thanks for the information. Happy to allow Barricades with the option of Obstacles.
Richard
That works for me This allows for Both views
Leslie
I don't think it is different views per se but rather that both sorts of defence were actually used. 😊
Quote from: SteveO on October 27, 2023, 10:10:18 AM
I don't think it is different views per se but rather that both sorts of defence were actually used. 😊
That's a better way of putting it.
My research is very confusing based on books translated post WW2 and text from translated in the last few years, and my own (very poor) translation skills. There seem to be statements like "a wall was built over the mountain", and "the wall was carried over the mountain", both statements are true translation but which is correct, since this "wall" could be stone or Bamboo it's hard to tell, but in two early scroll "the wall" is said to have been on the north side of the castle, and in the next scroll it says they are no walls to the north of the castle, the 2nd is more correct (maybe).