13 Century Mongolian shipwreck found in Kyushu

[sencho]

Just heard this on BBC world service too...

 

http://www.maritime-executive.com/artic ... f-nagasaki

 

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/nn20111025a2.html

[nagamaki - Franco]

[Tcat]

Very interesting. Thought to be the victims of one of the two "kamikaze" which saved Japan from Mongol invasion. Considering how important these events were in Japanese history, I would have thought this topic might generate more discussion...

 

Anyway, here is the CNN link:

 

http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/25/world/asi ... shipwreck/

 

and the 'graph for those in the UK:

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... eabed.html

[Nobody]

FYI;

http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/stream/m_news/vn111024_5.htm

[Drago]

Oh, very interesting. Well, I hope they get proper funding to raise and restore the ship.

 

If that really is part of an invasion fleet it indeed is an important find for Japanese history. And even if it isn't, it still is rare to find something that old in that kind of condition.

[Henry Wilson]

As an effort to try and generate some intellectual discussion on this interesting find, here are some thoughts that we can all chew on.

 

Considering how important these events were in Japanese history, I would have thought this topic might generate more discussion..

 

Despite what history books and historians say, I fail to see how the attempted Mongol invasions were that important on Japanese history. After all, they both failed. Apart from a certain mind-set summed up in the concept of "Kamikaze", the Japanese didn't absorb much other than some technology and techniques from the Mongols. I put to the house that on the whole Mongolian affair was hardly D-Day. Any thoughts on this?

 

By the way Happy DTI weekend.

[John A Stuart]

The Mongolian invasions had quite far reaching effects and, indeed, can be felt in modern history. The Japanese were aware of what was coming to an extent and defense costs were higher than before with an united defense of common cause against a foreign invader. In fact, these increased costs as well as other economic factors and the ronin problem helped exacerbate the Kamakura bakufu's decline. The Kamikaze as its associated image of divine protection in heavenly terms, (the asura versus oni paradigm), caused Japan to become more isolationist with varying degrees in subsequent centuries and fostered a nationalistic seed (hitherto it was a loose federation of seperate countries [kuni] with a common weal investment) which engendered the post restoration embarkation on colonisation and conquest. Too, Hideyoshi's campaign to conquer Korea and eventually China was fueled by the image of Korea as a spear aimed at Japan's heart. We must remember as well the innovative changes to Nihonto caused by the change in foe and the accoutre and methodology of battle. Some thought anyway. John

[Henry Wilson]

Thank you John for your reply.

 

I could argue that the changes in Japan that you cite would have happened anyway, with or without a visit from the Mongolians. The development of rice based agriculture, the arrival of Buddhism, contact with China as well the Black ships at the end of the Edo period in my opinion are much more significant. I think the Mongol visits were a catalyst to change that was would have happened anyway.

[Tcat]

Hi Henry,

 

Despite what history books and historians say, I fail to see how the attempted Mongol invasions were that important on Japanese history. After all, they both failed. Apart from a certain mind-set summed up in the concept of "Kamikaze", the Japanese didn't absorb much other than some technology and techniques from the Mongols.

 

I respectfully disagree, and raise you a Kamikaze I think the influence on Japanese history here is less about the adoption of technology or materials from the Mongols and more about the effect on subsequent Japanese culture, traditions and belifes as a result of the "kamikaze". However, some have noted that the Mongols did indeed influence military technology of the time, most importantly (for us especially) the Japanese sword. More on that later...

 

Though I am no historian, I have somehow gotten the idea into my lay head that the destruction of the Mongol fleets via "kamikaze" had a profound effect on galvanizing and solidifying Japan's nationalistic self-centric notion that the nation was born by devine means, and that it was still under the direct protection of an "intervening" god or gods. This could have been seen by some as almost akin to 'proof' of the old legends of Izanagi, Izanami Amaterasu etc. Also, I would go so far as to say it makes sense that these incidents likely had an effect on the development of Japan's position towards all 'foreign' entities in general. I think John said it better than I could:

 

The Kamikaze as its associated image of divine protection in heavenly terms, (the asura versus oni paradigm), caused Japan to become more isolationist with varying degrees in subsequent centuries and fostered a nationalistic seed (hitherto it was a loose federation of seperate countries [kuni] with a common weal investment) which engendered the post restoration embarkation on colonisation and conquest.

 

There is also the point to be noted that nothing unifies a segregated group more difinitively than a common enemy. Threat of invasion from an external force, whether or not said in invasion occurs, is a unifying force to those who feel threatened. This likely had somewhat of a unifying effect on Japan, as noted above.

 

I put to the house that on the whole Mongolian affair was hardly D-Day. Any thoughts on this?

 

I agree with you here to some extent. Obviously, it was not on quite the same scale as D-Day - but, would it have been the largest landing of any fleet on enemy soil? Most historians think so. I suppose we will never really know for sure, but one thing we can be sure of is that the Japanese certainly felt that they had been "saved" from a terrible peril by these storms, hence the telling and retelling of the legends of "kamikaze" in Japanese culture. Certainly these may have been exaggerated over the years, as all good tales are, but typically there is no smoke without fire.

 

Back to my point about Mongols influencing Japanese military technology and the Japanese sword, I remember reading somewhere that Mongol armour had some influence on the development of the uchi-gatana. Mongols used thick leather armour which worked well in protecting soldiers against attacks from most Japanese swords of the early 13th century.

 

I hope he wont mind me doing so, but I will take the liberty to quote something Clive Sinclaire wrote on the matter in an article on Masamune, to be found at http://www.to-ken.com/articles/Masamune.htm :

 

In 1274 and again in 1281, the ruling shogunate, based in Kamakura in Soshu (also called Sagami Province – present day Kanagawa-ken) was rocked to its roots by the invasion of Kublai Khan’s Mongol hordes. Both the battle tactics and the weaponry of the samurai defenders, was found to be wanting. Their beautiful swords were broken and irreparably damaged on the Mongol armour and, but for the intervention of the Gods in the form of the Kamikaze, a divine wind that wrecked the Mongol fleet, the Japanese would almost certainly have lost the day.

 

Accessing the situation back in Kamakura, and being in a state of high alert for a third invasion, the shogunate or military government, determined that their swords should be improved for practical reasons in future combat. Swords became wider and longer and other technical changes in the forging began to produce more robust blades. Pioneered by one Awataguchi Yoshimitsu together with Shintogo Kunimitsu, the new style was perfected in around 1320, by Kunimitsu’s pupil and son, Masamune. The new style formed the 4th distinctive tradition in swordmaking and is known as Soshu-den.

 

Food for thought.

 

By the way Happy DTI weekend.

I really wish I was there. Very jealous of all who could make it. I have promised myself I will make the journey next year. And hopefully come back with something shiny. And pointy.

[Henry Wilson]

Hi Alex

 

Nice answer. I sense you did not cut and paste it from a website :D .

 

I can see how the Mongol visit (it wasn't an invasion) influenced things in the past. My point is that it is not that significant overall which might be where our points of view are differing.

 

To my knowledge in modern-day Japan, Mongolia is not present at all in Japanese culture a part from a few sumo wrestlers. The influence on swords are well known amongst us but ask a modern Japanese person about the sword and Kublai Kan and most would not have a clue what you are on about.

 

The consolidation of the country, meaning a gathering together of the provinces I think would have probably happen as a matter of course as time went on mainly through necessity. I think the Chinese model (government, city planning, society etc) was much more significant and I would like to put forward that Mongols could be regard as more of a wake-up call when compared to other events in the past.

 

Just my spin on things and would love to hear from others.

[Tcat]

The consolidation of the country, meaning a gathering together of the provinces I think would have probably happen as a matter of course as time went on mainly through necessity. I think the Chinese model (government, city planning, society etc) was much more significant and I would like to put forward that Mongols could be regard as more of a wake-up call when compared to other events in the past.

 

I think you are quite right about this, but I also feel that due to fact that the arrival of the Mongols and the subsequent destruction of their fleet (twice) were somewhat random and externized events*, the incidents later went on to heavily influence not only the robustness of an 'us and them' mentality among the Japanese, but also a unique type of Japanese spirituality. In turn, these notions would then later have been built upon and manipulated by revisionists to augment arguments for internal national policy in favour of centralization and consolidation - which may have been harder to support without the events of history...but yes, I concede that they probably would have happened anyway.

 

I like your use of wake-up call, but I think it was a little more than that and its influence should not be underestimated.

 

*What I mean by this is that these events were not the result of decisions made by anyone within the country, they happened simply "naturally", by "fate" or "destiny" or "the will of the gods".

[IanB]

All, It is frequently said, as here, that Mongol armour showed up weaknesses in Japanese swords. What was it about Mongol armour that did the damage? The most frequently used illustration taken from the Mongol Scroll by Takezaki Suenaga shows the Mongols wearing long coats, some of which are shown marked as if quilted. These are thought to be layers of leather. However, many of the coats have skirts that are shown as billowing out and were clearly neither heavy nor stiff. In other places the Mongols wear a species of lamellar armour that is very similar to those worn in Tibet until the early 20th century. Japanese swords had apparently been used against the Japanese o-yoroi for a couple of centuries without these defects showing up. An average o-yoroi of the Heian and Kamakura periods was made mainly from scales made of nerigawa, with iron scales concentrated over vital areas and always with the iron scales alternated with leather ones. Nerigawa is a heck of a lot stiffer than the Mongol armours appear to be. So I ask the question again - what was it about Mongol armour that damaged The swords? Any ideas?

Ian Bottomley

[Grey Doffin]

Hi Ian,

I have read (or been told) that pre invasion swords had a pronounced hamaguri-ba, clamshell edge or convex cross section, which tended to hang up in leather armor. The major change to Nihonto post invasion was a more flat V shape leading to the shinogi.

Grey

[IanB]

Grey, Point taken, but if that were the case why didn't the Japanese adopt a similar armour. Instead they stuck to their traditional lamellar construction until well into the Muromachi era. If you find an armour technique that defeats a current weapon, you adopt it if your technology is capable of doing so. I wrote the above slightly tongue in cheek . I have a feeling that this idea of Mongol armour mashing Japanese blades was really thought up to account for the fact that blades changed after this period and a reason was being sought. I suspect it was partially because much more fighting was done on foot after the invasions and the old horseman's blades were not suitable.

Ian Bottomley

[John A Stuart]

Hi Guys, Important points. Like Grey and probably everyone else I had heard the was sword changed and adapted to increase their effectiveness on Mongolian armour. Ian points out the construction of the Mongolian armour. Well, there were three basic groups in the main in the Mongol army against Japan, the Mongol horsemen, the Chinese and the Korean levies. They all had lamellar armour based on leather and plate, some maille and some brigandine style armour. Leeds has some good examples of these types in their displays. What is readily apparent is the armours of both sides are very similar. So, what was the cause for the Japanese swords ineffectiveness or at least what could be improved? My opinion is; the style of combat. If one could find precise accounts of techniques used in prior Japanese combats, one might find, with the sword or spear, it was an highly ritualised affair. I expect most duels were finished not with the sword, but, by a finishing cut from a tanto. The armour would have been an effective defense and most duels would have had an element of luck or misadventure as a pivot point. However, mounted archers were the main battle group, the sword being a secondary weapon. It is my thought, as well, that the flash bangs and massed arrow attacks of the Mongols made the sword less likely to be used, except in close quarter combat, which was limited to chaotic melee. Pole arms are much more effective against an armoured opponent. Still and all seeing this weakness logic dictates that some changes in weaponry (swords as well) would needs be made, and were. John

[IanB]

John, Very tiny point. Mail wasn't used by the Chinese although they knew of it and illustrated it in books on military technology. Japanese mail seems to have been an independent invention having no similarity to any other (except the fragment of Etruscan mail that looks a bit similar in Musée de l'Armée - but I don't think the Japanese ever met the Etruscans).

Having said that I am inclined agree with you. It was fighting style that changed the sword not the Mongol's armour.

Ian

[John A Stuart]

Hi Ian, In the Leeds museum is Mongol armour that shows a Persian influence, particularly on helmets ( the pointed crown), that uses maille besides the usual lamellar neckguards. John

 

[Henry Wilson]

Thank you very much gentlemen for sharing your knowledge. The thread has taken a course towards the examination of the the arms used, which is very interesting and I hope more can be added.

 

To try and add a bit more to the discussion, from what I understand, it is believed that the Mongol Incidents have been distorted with myths and exaggeration. Here is what I understand about the incidents.

 

There were two landings and failed invasions. The first in November 1274. A force from Korea was sent. The number of troops has been reported as being 10 - 1 to the Mongols. However it seems more likely that it was 3,000 samurai, against about 7,000 to 13,000. The Mongols (mostly Koreans and other conscripts probably) got a few kilometers in land. The fighting was a series of uncoordinated skirmish. A samurai archer was lucky enough to shoot a Mongol general in the head, the Mongols retreated back to their ships and that night...... The fleet disappeared. There is speculation that a typhoon actually hit Kyushu then. Maybe a gale but it is doubted it was a Kamikaze. The fleet could have gone back home as it is believed that the number of troops sent from Korea was not enough to invade Japan. Also typhoons don't usually hit Japan in November. What happened it seems that Suenaga (the official reporter by scroll painting) could have made the whole incident more dramatic than what it was.

 

The second attempt seems to be a bit more serious. It was in 1280 around the end of August. There were two fleets, one from Korea and one from Southern China. It is believed there were about 10,000 Mongols invaders and they had a lot more resources. There was the similar land based fighting but suddenly the weather started to change. The Mongols who were not very familiar with the sea and tied their ships together to try and stabilize them, but the typhoon that struck and sunk the fleet. And so ends the Mongol expansion to the East.

[Steve Waszak]

Well, the real difference was the wall built at Hakata Bay. This prevented horsemen and foot soldier from penetrating inland en masse, and kept the fighting largely on the beaches, in small groups or in one on one face-offs. In such circumstances, the invaders were no match for the samurai, despite the vastly superior numbers for the former. Thomas Conlan's book on the subject should be required reading...

 

Cheers,

 

Steve

[sanjuro]

Just an observation: In as much as the sword is concerned, the fighting on the beaches would have of necessity been a dash and slash affair by mounted samurai, as well as fighting on foot. The Mongols were armed with short bows which allow for very fast release and good penetration at close quarters. The bow, similar to those of all asian plains peoples had a pull of about 45lbs. At close range that would drive an arrow right through most armours. The mounted samurai would of necessity needed to attack at the gallop and keep moving, since a stationary horseman is easily swarmed under by superior numbers. The slimmer swords of the time would not have been as effective under such circumstances, being not robust enough to deliver a telling slash at the gallop against the armour of the Mongols and showing a tactical weaknes in this respect. Following this example it would have been a logical progression to produce a sword that was broader and heavier that held a keener edge and would supply a more powerful slashing stroke. There is no doubt that swords underwent a change at this point in history and there would have indeed needed to be a catalyst for such changes. Perhaps the evolution of the sword would have taken this course in any event, but one needs to allow for this experience with a foreign invader to have some impact upon the weaponry of the time.

 

I cant agree with Henry that this was 'visit' as opposed to an invasion. You simply dont visit another country armed to the teeth and in your thousands without some sort of military objective in mind. An expeditionary force perhaps?????? :D At any rate not a 'drop in sometime over the weekend' situation. I believe that the second 'Visit' entailed a lot of horses in the ships that were sunk prior to the Mongols off-loading them. Had they established a beach head and brought the horses ashore, the fighting may well have been a lot more widespread and fierce.

[Henry Wilson]

I cant agree with Henry that this was 'visit' as opposed to an invasion.

 

Oh you should as I was there so I can tell you for sure. :D Have a listen to this, Episode 10. The first attack could have been reconnaissance.

 

http://itunes.apple.com/gb/podcast/a-sh ... d381288562

[sanjuro]

Henry.

 

I assume by the website that this download can only be done on a mac pc or an apple I thingamajig (My laptop became quite indignant when I tried). I have neither..... Thankfully. Is there a version for Microsoft or perchance even Blackberry??????? Something a little less exclusively leftfield or technologically specific????? I realise that mac is the new black, however I am but a poor lad from Oz and not up there with the avant garde techno types. :D

[IanB]

John, There is indeed a 'Mongol' armour in Leeds of which more anon. The armour you illustrate is in fact from the Sind in India made up from at least two part armours. As for the Mongol armour, it was actually collected in Tibet and is of iron lamellae laced with leather thongs. It is displayed mounted with a horse armour that was also collected in Tibet (by the Younghusband expedition). It is displayed as a 'Mongol' figure because the theme of the Oriental gallery is the 'mounted archer'. There is some evidence that much of the armour found in Tibet, including this armour, may well have been made by the Mongols. The horse armour consists of panels of lamellar armour surrounded by wide leather panels that are clearly additions, as is the shaffron and the crinet which are not iron but made of squares of a silvery alloy fastened onto a leather base - a totally different construction. The additions are Tibetan but the lamellar panels, like the man's armour, may be reused Mongol armour (See: An Approach to the study of arms and armour from Tibet; by Don LaRocca - Royal Armouries Yearbook, Vol4 1999, p.113).

In the Mongol Scroll by Takezaki, the lamellar armours are sometimes shown being worn by mounted Mongols and having handled the one in the Royal Armouries, I can see why. It is so heavy and very limp it is very difficult to hold onto - it is like trying to handle a mattress if you know what I mean. Sadly, the helmet of the armour is missing and one from Bhutan was added for the display.

 

As a golden rule, lamellar armour starts in classical antiquity, moves eastwards into Persia and surrounding areas, then on into Central Asia but only to the north of the Himalayas. Finally it reaches China and Japan. The Chinese eventually drop it and end up making armours which are really brigadine (small plates riveted onto leather or cloth). Only in Japan does it continue until 19th C. A small amount of lamellar was found in Scandinavia brought from Constantinople by the Vikings but didn't persist there. Mail, again from classical antiquity moves eastwards and westwards, displacing lamellar in the Middle East. Some is supplemented by columns of plates and in this form it enters India, being introduced by the Mamalukes and Turks in the 16th C. In Europe it becomes the predominant armour until plate is introduced. Areas like Bhutan adopt mail from India and from there it spreads into central Asia displacing lamellar. The final throw of mail in India is during the 19th C. when it finally lost the embedded plates and was made of thin weak links sewn onto cloth. Interestingly, much mail from the Arab nations is in fact European, sold by arms dealers when it went out of fashion in Europe. The final ignonominy were some mail armours worn in places the Sudan during the 19th C. - they were made in Birmingham from small key-ring type links and were so highly tempered they shattered when hit by a bullet and caused horrendous wounds.

Ian B

[John A Stuart]

I have some photos from the RA that were labeled Mongolian by them and it was to these I refered. I have seen that mounted armour on armoured horse. It was impressive. Thanks for the clarification Ian.

 

[IanB]

John, You don't surprise me. The people the Museum now employed ther revel in their ignorance and regard any display of knowledge as 'elitist'. However, the new picture shows an interesting Chinese lamellar armour collected is Szechuan where lamellar persisted longer. It is entirely of lacquered rawhide and has been relaced many times (some scales have decorated border patterns that are now used in the body of the coat). Alongside are brigandine type Chinese armours, one of which retains a small panel of lamellar on the leg defence.

Ian

[Henry Wilson]

What a great thread. Thank you so much guys.

 

Keith, I think you can download iTunes for free to any PC and then on iTunes download the podcast. You can listen to the podcast on the PC using iTunes. Here is iTunes

 

http://www.apple.com/itunes/

 

 

Good luck.