Samurai vs. Janissaries

[Kongamato]

After thinking about the Samurai versus European Knights argument from a long time ago, I couldn't help but notice that the Janissary Corps were left out of the earlier discussion. I decided to start this thread to compare them, as I feel that the two forces are remarkably similar in their high level of discipline and fierceness. From what I have read, the Janissaries were given vigorous training that even rivaled the Samurai, and fought with the same ferocity and confidence. However, I believe their tactics were quite different, and would prove most interesting to compare with that of the Samurai. As of right now, I have no idea who would win, based on their representative armies in the TW games. Therefore, I would like to hear your opinions on how the two would do against each other.

[Sjakihata]

Well, as the conclusion, as I remember, was on the knights vs. samurai debate, you would not really know. Too many factors to take into account.

Well, first we need to find out whether we speak individually or as an army. I would take no guesses individually, as Musashi Miyamoto would prpbably defeat everybody in his time-span (according to the sources). This show us that individual skill is impossible to make an average of, and no real winners can be found, as it is decided by the persons fightin and not the nation it-self.

If we talk about armies, there is a good chance that the japanese would win, simply by being more than the ottomans. The fact that Japan had around 20 mio. inhabitants in 1600 is a good argument why they would win an all out war.

However, the Jannisary was (as I understand) an elite corp in the ottoman army, and thus would have greater skill than the standard japanese troop.
If two armies equal in numbers, consisting of samurai and jannisarries met the result would be very difficult to estimate. Things like climate, terrain, leaders, morale etc. should be taken into account, and I will not even try to guess the result.

[solypsist]

Samurai would have lost against just about any European counterpart in the related timeframe.

[Acronym]

I would rather see Samurai's against a roman or greek army.

[Basileus]

Quote[/b] (solypsist @ Jan. 18 2003,17:11)]Samurai would have lost against just about any European counterpart in the related timeframe.

i tend to agree with ya on this..especialy jeni ceri´s

[Taohn]

Quote[/b] (solypsist @ Jan. 18 2003,17:11)]Samurai would have lost against just about any European counterpart in the related timeframe.

From about mid 1400's to the introduction of guns to Japan, you're probably right, but prior to 1400, I think the samurai would have mopped the floor with any European army. Once the Japanese got the guns and started making them at home (they were just as good as those made in Europe), guns became widely used. Combine that with the adoption of Nobunaga's ashigaru-gunner tactics, which were supposedly more advanced than the European's, sheer weight of numbers, and Japanese morale. I think they had a winning combination (even without a unified Japan). Still, I think the Europeans would have beaten them during the Tokugawa era due to the ban on guns.

[deejayvee]

Quote[/b] (Taohn @ Jan. 20 2003,21:24)]

Quote[/b] (solypsist @ Jan. 18 2003,17:11)]Samurai would have lost against just about any European counterpart in the related timeframe.

From about mid 1400's to mid 1800's probably, but prior to that, I think the samurai would have mopped the floor with any European army.

Could you guys please give reasons as to why you say that?

I would think that the West had better armour and more experience against more varied opponents.

I would think that the Samurai would have better discipline and personal skill.

As to who'd win, I'd go for the Western army purely because of the armour.

[Efrem Da King]

one on one a samuri would mop the floor of a jannisery.

[Leet Eriksson]

since a janissary carries a longer weapon then thats it for samurai boy i would'nt be surprised if the samurai complained that the janitor carried a longer mop than him