Rick
Mongoose
Yes and no. There are a lot of differences between the development of weapons in the european mediaeval and renaissance armies and the corresponding armies of Japan. In the european armies, development of different weapons led to a more rigidly evolved set of drills and unit formations. In Japan, there were fewer different weapons introduced so that unit formations were left largely up to the unit commanders. The exception that highlights this is the introduction of firearms to Japan. This led very rapidly to a different way of fighting, culminating in the battle of Nagashino where Tokugawa Ieyasu had a 3-deep line formation in his mainly musket-armed troops, which slaughtered the mainly cavalry army of Takeda Katsuyori. I think the most significant details of the deployment wasn't the formation of the troops but the differences between the armaments of the 2 armies. Ieyasu had his troops behind a barricade and ordered his troops to shoot the horses first. This was also one of the first times that there were enough muskets in an army to perform a version of volley fire. One eyewitness described the sound like "running a stick along a fence."
Even in this era, the main weapon (until the introduction of firearms) was seen as the Samurai cavalry charge. There are illustrations in books of the period of how an army should be arrayed for battle, with considerable detail gone into of how the entire army should be deployed in formation, but very little on how individual units should be drawn up.
Even in this era, the main weapon (until the introduction of firearms) was seen as the Samurai cavalry charge. There are illustrations in books of the period of how an army should be arrayed for battle, with considerable detail gone into of how the entire army should be deployed in formation, but very little on how individual units should be drawn up.
