What are the advantages & weaknesses of Japanese against Roman warfare?

[smooth_operator]

What do you think guys? Will the testudo stand a chance against the fearsome katana? Will roman discipline save them from a banzai charge? Post your thoughts here!

Again, due to the demand of populus romanus, I will specify further the features of this match-up. I think we'll have to match these armies when they are their strongest...

For Japan, let's presume that their army is from the Azuchi- Momoyama Jidai(The unification period), where Japan could possibly field a deadly combination of the strengths of its various clans.

For Rome, let's presume that they will be fielding units from the Imperial Period. Where a legion consists of more or less, 5000 men(heavy infantry) with 120 cavalry.

As to the type of battle, let us refer to these 3 scenarios(purely of my own ideas)

1. Reenactment of the Battle of Teutoburg Forest. This time, the Japanese are the ones who will carry out the ambush. Rome has three legions (Legio XVII, Legio XVIII, and Legio XIX), six cohorts of auxiliary troops (non-citizens or allied troops) and three squadrons of cavalry.
>>>It's up to YOU if you will employ the same tactic of bisecting the Roman Army and what Japanese Units will you use.

2. A Siege Battle. Let's just say Rome made a time machine to lay waste on Japan. They will be assaulting Himeji Castle(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Himeji_Castle#Design_details). Attacking contingent will be 3 legion strong complete with onagers and ballistae.
>>>What will be the ideal number of Japanese units to successfully defend the castle? And what units will YOU field?Can the Romans use their siege engines to full effect?

3. A Field Battle. It's purely a measure of tactical prowess. Provided we copy the battle specs of the Battle of Zama. However, it would be the Japanese instead of Carthage. Rome, led by Scipio, is 34,000 infantry and 6,000 cavalry strong(including Numidians), Japanese will have 45,000 infantry, 6,000 cavalry and 80 war elephants with Carthaginians to man them.
>>>Who shall win?

Refer to this picture for case number 2.
1389

[Nelson]

For starters, you have about 1000 years of Rome to match up with at least several centuries of Japanese military systems. Each faction changed a lot over time.

If you compare a Marian legion to a Sengoku army the teppo would blow the Romans away. Leave aside the guns and I doubt the Japanese could handle Roman legions. They fought like Roman enemies and would go down the same way. Warriors had trouble fighting the SPQR machine.

The horse archers of earlier Japanese history might have a better chance. I’m not sure the Japanese could field enough of them to get the job done though.

[JeromeBaker]

My humble opinion is the Roman machine would win out unless outnumbered heavily. The Samuri are no doubt great individual fighters, but they would be hard pressed to take on a large Roman field army. First off, the Samuri would lose many men to the Pilum throws, then when they get to the Roman front line, they would face a wall of sheilds with barely any exposed areas to attack. They then would face sword thrusts comming through the shield wall and they would have no shields to protect against this and nothing to block a punch of a shield boss to throw them off balance. I also assume the Romans would have a nice mix of seige style weapons. I know its not a direct comparison and a little bit of a stretch, but the Romans faced strong individual fighters in many of the germanic tribes who weilded swords that could easily do major damage as an offensive weapon, and while the individual german could take on a few Romans in isolated battle, they mostly lost when facing well trained Romans in a large army. For my comparison I am assuming you mean Roman armies at the height of their power with a solid field commander who isnt fool hardy and easy to trick.

Of course, who is to say the Samuri couldnt learn to adapt to fighting a more solidified profesional army. If they made good use of speed, arrows, and suckered the Romans into a situation where the Samuri could envelope 1 side of the Roman army and swarm this side with samuri it could be a very interesting outcome/victory for them.

My guess is Romans would win 7 out of 10 times.

EDIT- Also I am assuming no guns or cannons for the Japanese army

[Populus Romanus]

Japanese matchlocks and cannons would blast any Roman invasion into oblivion. It would be a hilarious sight to see some Japanese teppo gunners mowing down 80,000 Roman legionaries in a hail of gunfire. The unfortunate Romans would never know what hit them. However, if gunpowder weapons are taken out of the equation, then it would be a fairly even fight. On one hand, the Romans would have massive numerical superiority: Rome could call on immense reserves and regularly fielded armies so large that even the biggest Sengoku Japanese armies would put to shame. On the other, the Japanese would have cutting edge weapons technology (lol). Whereas Roman arms and armor were constructed out of iron, Sengoku Japanese weapons were build of steel. Japanese armor was also of superior quality, having been tried and tested for 1000 years more than Roman armor was. Japanese armorers and weaponsmiths were regarded as some of the best in the world. And although the Roman legionary is regarded as one of the most disciplined soldiers in history, in the end they cannot compare to the martial spirit, ability, training, dedication, and skill of the Samurai. Japan's main disadvantage would be numbers: most of their armies were Samurai, with a few auxiliary Ashigaru, and Samurai were few in numbers.

[Vladimir]

I really hate these comparisons. It's probably better to compare different aspects of the army; logistics, for example. The Romans likely outclassed the Japanese in their respective time periods.

[Voigtkampf]

I wouldn't be so fast to write it off in Roman's favor, even without samurai army using guns and cannons. I do not recall Hannibal's army of mercenaries having the reputation to excel in advanced strategies, but we still had the bloody outcome at Cannae.

One aspect nobody thought of - imagine the charge of samurai warriors; see them before your inner eye, storming down in their glittering armor, with demon masks on their heads, swinging katanas that could cut even through the Roman shields. Fearless, screaming enraged, charging in the middle of the enemy. The bravery of Roman soldiers aside, I think they would be sure the gates of Hades themselves opened to unleash that demon army.

[spicykorean]

You could suggest this for that Spike Show "Deadliest Warrior." I recall they did a Spartan vs. Ninja show.

Obviously, the show is pure fantasy yet fun, but a pattern that emerges is that all other things being equal, higher tech will usually yield more kills.

I'm guessing that the same will apply in the case of armies. Historically, this also seems to hold true. Given similar sized armies and not taking into account terrain/tactics, the higher tech army will win.

[Nelson]

The Japanese had no weapons advantage over the Romans. All of the melee weapons available to both were more than adequate to kill one another. Differences in melee weapons were almost NEVER very important throughout history. Put a modern soldier with a bayonet on his assault rifle against a man with a baseball bat and the outcome is not a foregone conclusion. Especially if the man has used the bat in combat before and is fearless!

Katanas could not cut through a scutum. No way. Samurai were no braver than Celts and Germans who were also skilled and motivated .

Marian legionaries were pros and formations would give them a huge advantage. Fighting single combat warriors like samurai or pikemen like Sengoku era ashigaru is what the Roman army did for a living.

[Kagemusha]

What era are we speaking off? Post Marian legions vs the Japanese warriors of same era? In my mind its clear cut victory for Legions. Sengoku period Japanese army vs Roman army 1300 years earlier?
If we count gunpowder weapons, it would be no contest. So should we compare lets say Japanese army prior 1543 when Portuguese shipwrecked sailors first introduced european gunpowder weapons in Japan? Please pick an setting and i will play along.

[JeromeBaker]

I wouldn't be so fast to write it off in Roman's favor, even without samurai army using guns and cannons. I do not recall Hannibal's army of mercenaries having the reputation to excel in advanced strategies, but we still had the bloody outcome at Cannae.
.


I could be wrong here, but I thought Hannibal did indeed have a reputation for exceling in strategy considering the time period he fought in. Advanaced strategy is closely related to the time period the fighting occured, and maybe Hannibal's ideas seem basic today but for the 200sBC they were quite effective. Hannibal also did a amazing job of allowing an army made up of different nationalities with different languages to fight as a unified force. He knew the Romans were over confident/uber aggressive and he used this against them. One of his favorite methods of fighting Rome was to allow the Roman center to advance by making it appear they were kicking the crap out of his middle, and as the Roman's eagerness to be agressive took over they pushed too far and created a natural envelopment of their own troops that Hannibal would exploit. Hannibal would press in on all sides and squish the romans so tight they couldnt even raise their swords without great effort, at that point its game over man.

Most of the Roman general's that attacked Hannibal were too eager for glory and did not put a lot of strategy into the battles except the standard march forward and conquer technique and continued to fall prey to being double enveloped. Some Romans generals realized the greatest weakness for Hannibal was the fact he was on foreign soil, so they simply shadoweded him, didnt give in to a pitched battle, and more or less skirmished which would eventual wear down Hannibal and force him to leave. This didnt go over well with the Senate that wanted victory now.

As a counterpoint to myself, Hannibal probably seemed more capabale than he really was because Rome was pretty stupid in how they fought him. A lot of the famous Roman generals would have run their campaigns much different if they were in charge against Hannibal and I dont think he would have fared as well. Rome was no where near its peak in terms of power and ability to fight battles at 216 B.C. which is around the time of Cannae's massive route. Didnt the Marius reforms take place 100 some odd years later than Cannae?

My earlier post picking Rome to win 7 of 10 times against a Samuri army was assuming a Roman army that was post Marius reforms.

I am sure seeing a samuri with his armor and face covering would be extremely terrifying, but a 6 foot 4 extremely muscular german running at you screaming with a sword or axe the size of a young Roman adult was also terryfying. I still say their discipline would allow them to fight effectively despite any fear the enemy could instill due to their fierce appearance.

[Kagemusha]

Jerome Baker, please elaborate how dicipline and organisation of Roman army was superior to a Sengoku period Japanese army?

[JeromeBaker]

Jerome Baker, please elaborate how dicipline and organisation of Roman army was superior to a Sengoku period Japanese army?

Hey Kagemusha,

Simply stated I can not do that... they were not more disciplined.

I beleive you were refering to my last post where I mentioned Rome had enough discipline to overcome the fear factor of seeing a samuri warrior, which appears very impressive on the battlefield. Someone posted above that the general look of the Samuri would be so intimidating that it would be a huge factor in Rome not being able to beat a Samuri army. I was just trying to make the point that Rome overcame other intimidating warrior nations and they had enough discipline that they wouldnt turn tail and run from the Samuri.

I would think you would be hard pressed to argue any soldier was more disciplined and had a greater sense of honor than a Samuri.

Where I think Rome did have an advantage is the Samuri fought like many of Rome's enemies which is a "warrior style" that promoted individual fighting skills and bravery. Often times warriors wont beat a professional army. I would put forth that Rome was more organized. By this I mean they were more similar to how we organize professional armies today than the Sengoku period. Rome's legions were well prepared under the correct leadership to produce many formations and tactics due to their training. They were well trained to fight as a single unit that put aside personal acheivement to fight as a cohesive group that relied on their troops protecting each other while they moved forward. 1 on 1 they would get their butts handed to them by a samuri, but as a group they get the advantage of synergy. They were also extremely well orgaized logistically to mount a long campaign on someone elses territory which was exceptional for their time period.

I dont think the Sengoku period in Japan necessitated they treat warefare the way Romans did. I am not that knowledgable with this period though so I could be off in how I explained Samuri as being less of a professional army and more of a group of extremely taleted warriors that individually would kick most other soldiers rear ends.

Edit - @SpicyKorean , Deadliest Warrior was a pretty cool show, not sure if they are still making new episodes. That was the first thing I thought about when I saw this thread.

[Kagemusha]

Thank you for your answer Jerome Baker.~:)

As Sengoku Jidai period Japanese warfare is lot more less known then lets say Roman warfare. Let me shed some light how a period Japanese army was constructed and what kind of organisation it had.

Composition

During Sengoku Jidai period a typical Japanese army was a sort of feudal army. It composed of Samurai and Ashigaru mostly. Based on vassals income in koku. (1 koku being amount of rice to feed a man for a year.) A vassal provided troops to his master. A typical ratio of troops would be three ashigaru per a single mounted samurai. This ratio was not made in stone and some Clans had lower ratio of ashigaru compared to samurai or vice versa.

Organisation

Army of a daimyo comprised of several smaller armies of his vassals, this kind of "mini" army was called Sonae, which means "formation". Sonae was a combined arms unit, which consisted of the basic troops of the era. Mounted or unmounted samurai and Ashigaru armed with Nagae Yari, which were a pike length spears, yumi bows and during the later part teppo muskets.
Sonae would usually have teppo and yumi ashigarus protected by nagae yari ashigarus, with samurai acting as officers and heavy infantry and mounted component of Sonae.
Each Sonae would be built of Tai or literallu "unit". These were the forementioned weapon squads. usually around 50- 100 men strong. Each Tai was made of by several smaller units called Kumis, literally "groups" each 10-30 men. Kumi was the smallest unit in Japanese army of the period.
So Tai and Kumi were basic "units" as we might understand them today, but Sonae could be of any size based on many factors.Now ofcourse next question is how this organisation was commanded.

Command

The command structure of a typical army of mid to late Sengoku jidai would be like this:

So-Daisho (the general of the army, often the Daimyo himself)
Samurai Taisho (Sonae commander)
Bugyo or Ashigaru Taisho (Tai commander)
Kumi-Gashira (Kumi commander)
Samurais and Ashigarus (soldiers; but obviously Samurais held a higher rank than Ashigarus)

Apart from this there were sort of staff officers, which did not make it into European armies until very late. These were Gunkan or Metsuke. They were direct retainers of a Daimyo, observing the actions of Samurai Taisho and communicating with the So- Daisho, so they were essentially staff officers.

For battle field communications the So-Daisho had an designated messenger unit called Tsukai Ban, whom were ranking samurai with their task to deliver battlefield communications. So when we think of a Daimyo leading a battle in feudal Japan, the picture is more like a general leading various brigades or divisions in battle rather then a huge blocks of homogenously armed men as one commander for infantry, two wings of cavalry and one leading missile troops.

So in my point of view this kind of army differs quite heavily from the Roman enemies.

[econ21]

An interesting thread, although perhaps it belongs in the Monastery? I'll leave it here for a while though, as it's nice to have some more traffic in this forum.

I'm interested in Kagemusha's information about the organisation of the Japanese armies, as it has always seemed a strong point of the Romans. I've always been puzzled by how ancient battles seemed to be much more tactical and complex than (European) medieval ones, as it seems a kind of regression.

On the weapons, I think the Roman sword and shield would be rather effective against the yari and bow based foot soldiers of medieval Japan (I take the point about gun powder). The Deadliest Warrior match up of Samurai vs Viking does give some pause for thought however:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Deadliest_Warrior_episodes#Episode_2:_Viking_vs._Samurai

In the match-up, the Samurai had a massive two-handed club that was shown to be devastating against a shield (if it did not break the shield, it would nonetheless do nasty things to the shield arm).

[Vladimir]

What do you think guys? Will the testudo stand a chance against the fearsome katana? Will roman discipline save them from a banzai charge? Post your thoughts here!

Because of various requests, I will clarify things just a little bit.
>>>It's a battle between a Sengoku army without gunpowder units and a Roman army at the peak of its power.<<<

I'm also thinking that after this thread, I will be posting another which features the Japanese Army against the
Medieval armies of Europe since it would be a more appropriate matchup regarding the time period. :)

I like your edits. This is getting more interesting. :2thumbsup:

[JeromeBaker]

That was very interesting Kagemusha, thanks for the insight.

[Populus Romanus]

It depends upon what era of Japan this takes place in (unified under a Shogun when Japan could muster huge armies or civil war when only little armies) and how many legions are brought to the fight.

[Voigtkampf]

The Japanese had no weapons advantage over the Romans.

This implies that a roman gladius was basically of the same quality as the katana. I don't think that claim could stand the scrutiny.



Katanas could not cut through a scutum. No way.

Two planks of wood covered with canvas and calf-skin, with a varying thickness of 1-2 inches? I am not impressed. My money is still on the katana.


Marian legionaries were pros and formations would give them a huge advantage. Fighting single combat warriors like samurai or pikemen like Sengoku era ashigaru is what the Roman army did for a living.

On the other hand, samurai didn't fight for living, as Roman soldiers did; samurai lived for fighting. I simply do not believe that roman lines would hold the initial samurai charge. Also, the myth of unshakable and firm roman defense lines and armies that never lost formation and cohesion is a tad little bit overblown.


I could be wrong here, but I thought Hannibal did indeed have a reputation for exceling in strategy considering the time period he fought in.

That is indeed true, Hannibal was a genius, to say the least; hence I specifically referred to his army:


I do not recall Hannibal's army of mercenaries having the reputation to excel in advanced strategies, but we still had the bloody outcome at Cannae.

Point was to prove that, even though Hannibal did in fact devised an ingenious double envelopment strategy, first ever recorded, the entire victory cannot be ascribed to him alone. There is the bravery of his men, his mercenaries, infantry and cavalry, who fought against overwhelming odds, outnumbered and - pardon the pun - out-gunned. Those people stood their ground and conducted a maneuver of controlled convexing of the initial crescent moon formation, bending inwards and luring romans in to the trap, while their own peril was a proverbial hair breadth away. And they succeeded.

In short, people are accustomed to view roman armies as invincible machinery that grinds opponents down without as much as a feeling the bump in the road, whereas the "barbarians", if successful, would have their success attributed to either exceptional leaders and/or overwhelming numbers. The less romantic truth is that roman armies won in the end, but never were as unstoppable and perfectly tuned as some are inclined to believe. They fought, they messed up, they broke formation, they ran in fear and they died, as all men do.

Alas, back to the main point; as the aforementioned The Deadliest Warrior show, this is a matter of theorizing where no finite answer can be provided.

However... If we were to observe the two armies in strict technological sense (without gunpowder and /or any kind of artillery whatsoever), I am wondering how are the two very important types of army faring against each other in comparison; I am talking about cavalry and archers. It seems that roman armies mostly had inferior, ally cavalry at disposal, which didn't always end well for them; wouldn't they be sub-par to samurai cavalry? Also, the archers; does it not strike people as probable that Japanese archery was far better developed than their roman counterparts? (I believe the English longbow would give them the run for their money, but Romans had none of those...)

[Nelson]

This implies that a roman gladius was basically of the same quality as the katana. I don't think that claim could stand the scrutiny.


Katana quality might be important at Sotheby's in London but such craftsmanship is not very relevant once the stabbing and slashing begins. The equipement only needs to be good enough. Roman gear was more than adequate. All of these weapons do their jobs. Very little practical advantage would be had by a samurai because his katana was folded so many times by an artisan smith. If one man fights with a shiny new pipe and another with a rusty one, does the first man have some mighty advantage? I think not..


Two planks of wood covered with canvas and calf-skin, with a varying thickness of 1-2 inches? I am not impressed. My money is still on the katana.

The scutum would stop a blow by a katana of any quality. That's all it need do. I would think that a katana might even get stuck at which time our samurai would get eviscerated by one or more legionaries! Or do you suggest that the scutum would simply fall to pieces? Rome used the scutum/gladius combination for centuries and racked up a pretty good track record.

And don't underestimate the charge and ferocity of barbarian attacks. A horde of large, blue painted, tatoo'ed warriors screaming and shouting had to be unerving to say the least. The Romans handled them.

Roman armis were not invincible. They lost plenty of battles over the centuries. I still believe however that at their best, a Marian legion would defeat a similar number of samurai. Alas, we can't put our theories to the test. It does make for good conversation though.

[Voigtkampf]

It is true, it makes for a good conversation. Especially when you got civilized company to discuss it with. ~:cheers:

Alas, to the arguments at hand.


Katana quality might be important at Sotheby's in London but such craftsmanship is not very relevant once the stabbing and slashing begins. The equipement only needs to be good enough. Roman gear was more than adequate. All of these weapons do their jobs. Very little practical advantage would be had by a samurai because his katana was folded so many times by an artisan smith. If one man fights with a shiny new pipe and another with a rusty one, does the first man have some mighty advantage? I think not..

Well, I think there is a great difference there. First of all, katana is longer than a gladius, it has a greater reach. And being of higher quality than a gladius, in any eventual collision of blades, gladius would be either severely damaged or would even break on impact. Now here is a difference not between holding a new shiny or a rusty pipe, but between holding a three foot long blade in your hand or holding a stump.



The scutum would stop a blow by a katana of any quality. That's all it need do. I would think that a katana might even get stuck at which time our samurai would get eviscerated by one or more legionaries! Or do you suggest that the scutum would simply fall to pieces? Rome used the scutum/gladius combination for centuries and racked up a pretty good track record.

Katana has been known to be tested on condemned criminals, sometimes cutting them basically in half, especially when used the diagonal strike, going downward from right high to left low. Based on this empiric evidence, I find it easy to conclude that katana would cut a fairly deep slice through the scutum. Now imagine a roman soldier holding the shield up to his eyes to protect himself; the top of the shield is more or less at the height of his shoulder or say, for the sake of argument, at the level of the top of the soldiers head. A katana swung downward with enough thrust should easily cut through the edge of the shield deep enough to cut through the soldiers shoulder; such a strike which is not all too hard to accomplish would inevitably cut through the shoulder of the hand holding the shield. A cut aorta and the soldier is without consciousness within six seconds, dead within 15.

Like it or not, better weapons do in fact give an edge, sometimes a substantial edge for the better geared soldier. To be blunt - and pardon my pun - sharper blades cut deeper.

[Vladimir]

Remember that swords aren't used to cut down trees. As mentioned earlier, a katana would more likely get stuck in a scrotum. It's a composite of wood, metal (brass) and leather.

[JeromeBaker]

The Roman's typical enemy used swords with a longer reach. They werent really using their Gladius to parry off blows from an enemy sword, but simply to thrust forward into a belly, groin, neck or other exposed area. The real question to me isnt if the Gladius would be able to defend a blow from a katana (which it wouldnt), but would the shields hold up long enough for them to win?

I am not sure there,but I think Vlad is right that many Samurai swords would get stuck. I also think it wouldnt take long before the shield is rendered useless. I dont see it absorbing more than a couple blows from a trained Samurai. If the Roman front line kept losing their shields as they rotated their lines, would they be able to kill enough Samurai to win before most of their shields are gone?

Still leaning towards the Romans, but not as strongly as when this thread first started.

[Husar]

a katana would more likely get stuck in a scrotum.

:inquisitive:

Also, how easily would a katana cut through roman armour? And how easily could a gladius be stabbed through japanese armour?
To kill a soldier you don't just have to cut through their shield or hit them, you also have to penetrate their armour, apparently an easy exercise in most medieval movies but then you got to wonder why people spent so much money on it back in the day, eh?

So basically the scutum would slow the katana down a bit upon impact, but let's assume it cuts through anyway, but then, while still cutting through the wood, the tip of the blade hits a lorica hamata or lorica segmentata, what then? Would it have enough power to cut through them AND the shield? And what if the samurai is using a no-dachi instead?
On the other hand, would a gladius easily penetrate japanese armour? I remember reading it was made specifically to prevent cuts, but a gladius is used to stab, would it go right through or would the romans have problems penetrating it? I don't think that a gladius could easily be stabbed through somewhat decent plate armour for example.

[Voigtkampf]

Remember that swords aren't used to cut down trees.

No. Axes are used to cut down trees. Katanas are designed to cut through bones, flesh and sinew, as well as Japanese armor. Which used to consist mostly from iron plates interwoven with leather. Iron is harder than wood. At least that is what they thought us in schools.


As mentioned earlier, a katana would more likely get stuck in a scrotum. It's a composite of wood, metal (brass) and leather.

Oh, dear... You have a most impressive scrotum indeed. :2thumbsup: :laugh4:

[smooth_operator]

Oh, dear... You have a most impressive scrotum indeed. :2thumbsup: :laugh4:

Now this made me laugh. :laugh4:

Going back, it's fun to see how much interaction my thread has achieved and it's really great reading your comments since I get so much knowledge from it. :2thumbsup:

How about some insights as to the scenarios I provided guys? Yes? :bow:

[Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout]

No,Roman armies would not have survived.You're all forgetting that the Japanese had archers.They had cavarly,and their infantry was remarkably well trained.Bow Samurai.It would be a equal test.

[Populus Romanus]

Are we or are we not including gunpowder in this debate? After all, the OP specifically mentions the Sengoku period, during which gunpowder was used. If we are factoring in cannons and matchlocks, Japan wins. I'd like to see a Roman legionary's response when invisible arrows start killing everyone through their shields!:laugh4:

[smooth_operator]

Are we or are we not including gunpowder in this debate? After all, the OP specifically mentions the Sengoku period, during which gunpowder was used. If we are factoring in cannons and matchlocks, Japan wins. I'd like to see a Roman legionary's response when invisible arrows start killing everyone through their shields!:laugh4:

I think it would be an overkill if we still include gunpowder in this debate. What do you think?

[Vladimir]

Are we or are we not including gunpowder in this debate? After all, the OP specifically mentions the Sengoku period, during which gunpowder was used. If we are factoring in cannons and matchlocks, Japan wins. I'd like to see a Roman legionary's response when invisible arrows start killing everyone through their shields!:laugh4:

I'll protect them! My shield is strong.

[Noncommunist]

As a counterpoint to myself, Hannibal probably seemed more capabale than he really was because Rome was pretty stupid in how they fought him. A lot of the famous Roman generals would have run their campaigns much different if they were in charge against Hannibal and I dont think he would have fared as well. Rome was no where near its peak in terms of power and ability to fight battles at 216 B.C. which is around the time of Cannae's massive route. Didnt the Marius reforms take place 100 some odd years later than Cannae?

The Romans had 16 years of fighting him testing out different strategies till finally Scipio got him. I'd say he would have had to be rather brilliant simply to survive for that long against all sorts of Roman generals.

[nameless]

This is silly.

The Japanese in this case we're talking about is 16th century.

The Roman army in question is 2-3rd century.

No matter what you look at the Romans are clearly outclassed here in terms of fighting techniques, technology, etc. I mean of course the samurai equipment will be superior to anything an Imperial Legionare carries.

Even if we're to take the Byzantine Empire it's peak was about 12-14th century and they evolved from how the Romans fight at that time.

For arguments sake and for the thread

A typical Roman army would consist of legions plus auxilary units from whatever local region is possible. The vast majority will of course be of the heavy infantry type which carries pilum, shield, and gladius. And again, Roman legions fight as a single unit and not individually. Whereas a gallic army could bring in 2-3 warriors to a front line a Roman army could bring in 5-6 guys to a front line. Roman armies are deadly in close quarter combats because the gladius does not need a lot of space to fight in. Plus the Legionaries would have tons of experience from fighting the dozens of various tribes they've had over the years. Add to the fact that they are professional soldiers as well and are extremely disciplined.

Then you add in their auxillary units which could include light infantry or cavalry for support.

A japanese army I do not know much but I'm pretty sure that the majority of them would be ashigaru soldiers whose equipment aren't as good as a samurai's which make up a small core.

So really the Roman army wouldn't exactly be facing 10,000 samurai would they?

[Nelson]

This is silly.

The Japanese in this case we're talking about is 16th century.

The Roman army in question is 2-3rd century.

No matter what you look at the Romans are clearly outclassed here in terms of fighting techniques, technology, etc. I mean of course the samurai equipment will be superior to anything an Imperial Legionare carries.

Even if we're to take the Byzantine Empire it's peak was about 12-14th century and they evolved from how the Romans fight at that time.

Using this logic, 18th century North American Apaches have an advantage over Roman legions and Sengoku samurai armies as well!

[nameless]

Using this logic, 18th century North American Apaches have an advantage over Roman legions and Sengoku samurai armies as well!


While my knowledge of North American indians is weak I do know that in comparisons the New World natives didn't advance the same way as the Old world (I would include Japan as Old world as well).

That and one of the main reasons the 18th century Musket armies were able to conquer the new world was through diseases so I would say 18th Century Apaches would give any Japanese/Roman army a good beating as they do not fight open warfare but hit and run which the Romans always had difficulty fighting against.

That and no one seems to answer my question whether a Japanese army would actually comprise mainly of samurai.

[Kagemusha]

nameless, i think i answered that one already in my post on last page. Nelson, i am bit reluctant to even get into this argument as to me its absurd, but please tell me how for example the legion can protect its flanks and rear when mounted samurai were using stirrups, which enabled them to basically stand on horseback fighting with variety of weapons, while during the times of Rome such thing was not even discovered?

[Shibumi]

Who would win, Super Space Oranges vs Mutated Apples?

Clearly you people are putting your minds to use.

[Koga No Goshi]

I really hate these comparisons. It's probably better to compare different aspects of the army; logistics, for example. The Romans likely outclassed the Japanese in their respective time periods.

That's rather stacking the deck considering Rome owned a huge portion of the ancient world. That's like saying let's see who had a better long-distance travel system, the Mongol Empire or Japan.

[Shibumi]

That's rather stacking the deck considering Rome owned a huge portion of the ancient world. That's like saying let's see who had a better long-distance travel system, the Mongol Empire or Japan.

I think he just pointed out the futility of the topic, like I did.

[Rothe]

I'd say you have to assume equal numbers with typical army composition of the time.

Not every soldier in a Japanese army of that time would have a katana. Think about this.
Some also seem to assume that everyone with a katana is Miamoto Musashi and everyone with a gladius & shield is just "some guy who picked it up". Not all katanas are masterfully smithed. Some are just decent swords comparable to gladius et al.

The problem is that perceptions are colored to see Japanese as some gods of warfare and romans as the grunts. In real terms, I think they were both well trained and disciplined. The looks don't matter in the fight unless the enemy is scared because they are undisciplined. Romans had their tricks too (fire and dogs etc. etc.)

Seriously. Think in equal terms. Romans had a more even army consistency. They all had pretty standardized equipment. In a battle with even numbers, a lot of the Japanese army would be spear ashigaru and so on.

If you take the best japanese army that was fielded, then maybe you'll get a lot of samurai, but then you gotta take also the elite Roman troops into that battle.

With typical consistency of majority of lower class troops, romans would take it in my mind. They had unified tactics, equipment and the japanese yari troops were really peasants with some training. Romans were professional troops.'

Elite vs. Elite is more even I guess. Pure samurai troops vs. Roman elites is still not a clear win for Japanese IMO. I call it quite even, or even slightly favoring the romans still.

[Vladimir]

That's rather stacking the deck considering Rome owned a huge portion of the ancient world. That's like saying let's see who had a better long-distance travel system, the Mongol Empire or Japan.

The statement was made within the context of the thread; specifically the OP.

[Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout]

No,Even still,Japanese infantry were still stubborn and strong.Bring in Matchlock Yari ashaguri,then see how your arguements turn to lies.Japanese armies were still superiror.Put them in front of a medeival 15th century battle,and we're even sided here.

[Rothe]

No,Even still,Japanese infantry were still stubborn and strong.Bring in Matchlock Yari ashaguri,then see how your arguements turn to lies.Japanese armies were still superiror.Put them in front of a medeival 15th century battle,and we're even sided here.

First post should be edited to leave guns out. No gunpowder weapons for the comparison, since it makes little sense to try to do it that way.

[Kagemusha]

First post should be edited to leave guns out. No gunpowder weapons for the comparison, since it makes little sense to try to do it that way.

Did you read my posts at all? Maybe you would like to address my poin of concerns? Let us see:

Mounted forces, Japanese mounted warriors have a small advantage called stirrups, so they have a serious advantage fighting melee from horse back. Impossible for Romans to win on flanks.

footmen, Japanese combined weapon squads consisting of front of Ashigaru armed with nagae yari pike´s ranging from 5 to 7 meters long, supported by bowmen with yumi, japanese longbow shooting at point blank range to Legionaries, backed up with more heavily armed and armored unmounted samurai.

Armor, for romans mostly lorica hamata and to a lesser extent lorica segmentata and squamata. For Japanese lamellar armour with surface of smaller or larger steel plates. Most of Japanese weapons were aimed to puncture, thus iron chainmail, or partial iron plate would not be much protection against, while 1200 years advantage in metallurgy points in favour of Japanese.

One knows that legions were able to defeat pikemen, aka hellenistic phalangites. The reason for it, more tactically flexible tactics and ability to win the fight at flanks. While hellenistic phalangites deployed in huge pike phalanxes, Japanese depolyed their pikes in only few line deep formations. If we accept the fact that Romans cant win the mounted battle on flanks. How can they defeat the Japanese pikes head on with their large shield, pilum and short sword, when the reach advantage and missile advantage is towards the Japanese, while they can be freely flanked by the Japanese who had lot more flexible organisation, like ive shown in my previous post already. To me your earlier comment that Japanese are thought as war Gods and Romans mere grunts is uncalled for.

Had the opposing forces be contemporary European army against Japanese.I would favour the European, because their advantage in cavalry and artillery. Would the forces been Japanese army of 1st-3rd century AD against Legions.I would be clearly in favour of Legions, but to claim that army with 1200 older technology, armour and weapons would defeat the later one, is nothing else then hybris to me.

[Vladimir]

I can negate your cavalry argument by reminding you that the Romans relied on their allies, or mercenaries, to provide cavalry support. I know the stirrup didn't come around until the 4th century AD or so they had the potential of acquiring better cavalry. The cavalry archers used by the Eastern Roman Empire would cause a lot of grief.

Again I suggest that the Romans would win an extended campaign due to their organization, discipline, and logistics.

[Kagemusha]

still the same advantages in metallurgy would be in place. Iron,stone or bone arrow heads are bit weak compared to steel. If you are referring to steppe nomads of the time.Same goes with armour. So can you tell me what 300AD mounted warriors were equal or stronger then 1500 AD mounted samurai? Remember Ashigaru had no business being at horseback, so the mounted Japanese element were all elite.

[andrewt]

I can negate your cavalry argument by reminding you that the Romans relied on their allies, or mercenaries, to provide cavalry support. I know the stirrup didn't come around until the 4th century AD or so they had the potential of acquiring better cavalry. The cavalry archers used by the Eastern Roman Empire would cause a lot of grief.

Again I suggest that the Romans would win an extended campaign due to their organization, discipline, and logistics.


Rome wasn't known for their cavalry nor archery. They pretty much suck at it. Mercenaries would be no match for the Japanese.

If we're talking about the Eastern Roman Empire, they're more a contemporary as they fell 200 years before the Sengoku Jidai. The Western Roman Empire army that we're being asked to compare is over 1500 years older. I think some people are assuming that there are 0 significant advances in metallurgy during all those years.

I don't think the Roman gladius can even compare to a modern steak knife.

[Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout]

[QUOTE=andrewt;2053356809]Rome wasn't known for their cavalry nor archery. They pretty much suck at it. Mercenaries would be no match for the Japanese.

If we're talking about the Eastern Roman Empire, they're more a contemporary as they fell 200 years before the Sengoku Jidai. The Western Roman Empire army that we're being asked to compare is over 1500 years older. I think some people are assuming that there are 0 significant advances in metallurgy during all those years.

I don't think the Roman gladius can even compare to a modern steak knife.[/QUOTe


Hmm I can agree.The Japanese had clever leaders,something which the romans lacked.Takeda Shingen,Oda Nobunaga,Uesgai Kenshin,Date Massamue.

What they're forgetting is the fact that that Japanerse armies had more units than ever.Tachi Samurai,There were a wide a amount of Samurai and they seem to underestimate that yes pretty much,cavarly was elite.Katana Ronin and Yari Ronin,Ashaguri Nagainta and there were a wide amount of monk warriors.Sure the Romans would have flung javlens,but the samurai dont fight with shields.They would have charged no matter what.And the fact everyone seems to forget,that becoming a samurai,let alone a yari ashaguri took years of pratice.Or months.

Samurai were higly skilled swordsmen.In fac it is strange to think that european armies fought with shields,and eastern armies fought with shields,but the Japanese were the only people to never fight with a shield!Think of it,all the people of the world have some sort of shield. Even still they would have been highly skilled in how to use them,and they would have slit a roman straight before had a chance,think of no-dachi samurai immideatly plungining their swords into a samurai's throat.You could see it that way

[Nelson]

The Japanese had clever leaders,something which the romans lacked.

Scipio, Sula, Marius, Caesar, Germanicus, Pompey, Agripa. Yeah, those Roman commanders were bums. The whole lot of 'em...

[Peasant Phill]

Think of it,all the people of the world have some sort of shield. Even still they would have been highly skilled in how to use them,and they would have slit a roman straight before had a chance,think of no-dachi samurai immideatly plungining their swords into a samurai's throat.You could see it that way

I've always wondered why the use of a shield never caught on in Japan ( was there a time shields were in use?). One would imagine that shields had their uses against two handed swords, spears and archers of course. I somehow doubt a no-dachi being able to easily overpower a legionnaire in formation, a shield wall is very effective. That's of course not to say that the battle would be very different on the flanks and not taking guns into account.

[Arjos]

I know of some shields in the Ryukyu islands, but nothing else...
Anyway contemporary Europe almost didn't use shields either...
Why a shieldless samurai is different from a gothic knight? And I mean the first one without a shield, is it something out of this world? :D

[faker01]

Rome wasn't known for their cavalry nor archery. They pretty much suck at it. Mercenaries would be no match for the Japanese.


When the cacalry from rome would fall, they would have no defense against japanese cavalry. (rome had big problems with cavalry, so they changged their equipments)

[NightwindKing]

lol odd place to introduce myself I know, but I thought I'd add-in my two cents (hi, Im new ;-)

Historians tend to agree on Rome's effectiveness/power/strength for a number of reasons...one being their hierarchy/social structure and communications system (roads, prefects, etc...) and another being their cohesive and cookie-cutter military. Not because a perfectly uniform military is best, but because it was best in their time period, for who they fought against.

The Greeks had a similar success. Alexander's forces were famous for their strong cohesian and 'stand together' attitude, which was what allowed them to beat the old-world Persian hordes under Darius II (or was it I?). When the tactics, equipment, and skill of two armies comes down purely to who is more orderly and 'in control', the more unified force will almost always win. It's simple logic.

That said, Rome won its battles primarily because its commanders (when they weren't incompetent morons, obviously) were able to intelligently use their strengths to their advantage. One of the primary strengths was the unification and cohesian of its military forces.

However, as has been said, just because something is uniform doesn't make it great...the cavalry, for example, which sucked. And was uniformly sucky.

The Roman army was designed to be a powerhouse and anvil to swiftly stomp-out rebellion and fractured tribes by virtue of its unification, advanced (for the time) technology, and common tactics. It was made to fight in open, massed battles of two or more large massed forces fighting head-to-head. Rome historically did poorly in defending against ambushes (most armies do, I suppose).

That said, the Japanese army (as an umbrella term) was designed for mountainous forest warfare. The large open massed battles in fields or hills were not nearly as common as ambushes, mountain seiges, and skirmishes. It's why there are so few 'legendary' Japanese battles known outside of Japan...westerners think of amazing battles like Thermopylae (however you spell it), Agincourt, D-Day, etc...whereas for the Daimyo, a larger battle was more costly and, in all likelyhood not as 'worth it' if the gain could be had with lesser forces. Book of Five Rings, for example, makes a huge point that the greatest commander is the one who wins without fighting any battles (echoed in The Art of War).
Samurai were, on a whole, well-trained swordsman. They were as accustomed to fighting in their armor, with their weapons, as the Legionnaires were. The Samurai, though, were used to fighting one-to-one, looking for personal honor. The samurai 'style' of warfare was one of calling-out your opponent, stepping around your allies, and dueling till one was dead, then moving on. HUGE difference from the Roman 'lock shields and stand' model.
So, it would all depend on the type of battle, the intelligence of the commander, etc...

Everyone can agree, I think, that in one-to-one a generic, well-trained armored Samurai would crush a legionnaire handily.
In pitched battle? Since samurai armies were generally largely ashigaru (which really isn't a unit type anyway, just a rank), spear-armed or bow-armed peasants...no doubt well-versed in their weapon, but not hardened lifestyle warriors. I'd say in a mountainous-terrain battle, in Japan, the Japanese would win. They'd know how to get around even the tough Roman front. In an open field in capernum, Rome would likely win. They'd have the experience of such open battles that not even the best Japanese commander would have much of.

[NightwindKing]

And all of that to, of course, not reply to the actual scenarios! Sorry man.

Reenactment of the Battle of Teutoburg Forest. This time, the Japanese are the ones who will carry out the ambush. Rome has three legions (Legio XVII, Legio XVIII, and Legio XIX), six cohorts of auxiliary troops (non-citizens or allied troops) and three squadrons of cavalry.
This is easy. The Japanese would CRUSH the Romans. Varus was an arrogant idiot. His forces were tired, in foreign territory, hungry tired and wet. Plus they were spread-out and mixed with civilians. The Japanese ambushing would be alert and ready, not to mention that they're in their 'native' environment (hilly forests). No chance the Romans would win.

2. A Siege Battle. Let's just say Rome made a time machine to lay waste on Japan. They will be assaulting Himeji Castle(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Himeji_...Design_details). Attacking contingent will be 3 legion strong complete with onagers and ballistae.
>>>What will be the ideal number of Japanese units to successfully defend the castle? And what units will YOU field?Can the Romans use their siege engines to full effect?
The Japanese COULD win this. Would depend on the commander. With 18,000 attacking Romans I guess I'd go for a cavalary force of 8,000, a yumi samurai force of 3,000 and a sword-armed contingent of 2,000. I doubt it would be feasible, though for a single clan to muster that kind of strength, and all in samurai. All in all, though, I'd say the mounted contingent is the most important. The Romans could shoot their ballistae and onagers all they liked but there's not much wall of Himeji to destroy. And it would depend on if they were trying to capture the castle (blow walls, insert troops ;-) or destroy it, in which case a couple flaming pitch barrels would work.
If the Romans tried to burn-out the Japanese defenders, they'd win. The Japanese would be forced to sally and their cavalry would have to support the attack, leading to them breaking against the Roman shieldwalls. If, however, Rome attempted to assault the castle and scale the walls, I think the Japanese would be able to defeat them...would depend on flanking them with the cavalry while the legions were climbing/massed near the wall.

3. A Field Battle. It's purely a measure of tactical prowess. Provided we copy the battle specs of the Battle of Zama. However, it would be the Japanese instead of Carthage. Rome, led by Scipio, is 34,000 infantry and 6,000 cavalry strong(including Numidians), Japanese will have 45,000 infantry, 6,000 cavalry and 80 war elephants with Carthaginians to man them.
The Japanese have no experience using war elephants. They've fought AGAINST them, but they would be at worst a liability and at best a wild card. A smart So-Daisho would keep them in the rear.
My guess is the Samurai cavalry would crush the Roman cavalry early-on and move to attack their flanks. The Japanese would charge supported with spearmen and bowmen behind, after launching a couple volleys every dozen yards.
The Romans would slowly advance a shield wall, leaving their archers positioned statically. Upon having the Samurai charge their flank the shield wall would pull back, archers drawing fire, at which point the central Ashigaru would charge, supported by massed bow fire. When the Romans pressed in the Samurai on the flanks would squeeze.
At that point it would be a question of whether the Japanese could break the shield wall. If the cavalry were quick and smart enough, they might be able to lead the edge and get around, at which point the legions would be forced to draw back or collapse, giving the Ashigaru an opening. Still, my guess is a smart Roman commander with morale-high troops would win, narrowly. Remember the Romans would be willing to retreat, while Bushido demands that you kill your enemy or die (I'm generalizing here). My guess is the Romans might tire, slipping up and allowing the Samurai to pour-in to the center, but if their morale held the Romans would win.

[Peasant Phill]

Hello NightWindKing, A nice introduction. I'll leave it to others to go further into your arguments.

I think the monastary here would be of great interest to you.

[Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout]

lol odd place to introduce myself I know, but I thought I'd add-in my two cents (hi, Im new ;-)

Historians tend to agree on Rome's effectiveness/power/strength for a number of reasons...one being their hierarchy/social structure and communications system (roads, prefects, etc...) and another being their cohesive and cookie-cutter military. Not because a perfectly uniform military is best, but because it was best in their time period, for who they fought against.

The Greeks had a similar success. Alexander's forces were famous for their strong cohesian and 'stand together' attitude, which was what allowed them to beat the old-world Persian hordes under Darius II (or was it I?). When the tactics, equipment, and skill of two armies comes down purely to who is more orderly and 'in control', the more unified force will almost always win. It's simple logic.

That said, Rome won its battles primarily because its commanders (when they weren't incompetent morons, obviously) were able to intelligently use their strengths to their advantage. One of the primary strengths was the unification and cohesian of its military forces.

However, as has been said, just because something is uniform doesn't make it great...the cavalry, for example, which sucked. And was uniformly sucky.

The Roman army was designed to be a powerhouse and anvil to swiftly stomp-out rebellion and fractured tribes by virtue of its unification, advanced (for the time) technology, and common tactics. It was made to fight in open, massed battles of two or more large massed forces fighting head-to-head. Rome historically did poorly in defending against ambushes (most armies do, I suppose).

That said, the Japanese army (as an umbrella term) was designed for mountainous forest warfare. The large open massed battles in fields or hills were not nearly as common as ambushes, mountain seiges, and skirmishes. It's why there are so few 'legendary' Japanese battles known outside of Japan...westerners think of amazing battles like Thermopylae (however you spell it), Agincourt, D-Day, etc...whereas for the Daimyo, a larger battle was more costly and, in all likelyhood not as 'worth it' if the gain could be had with lesser forces. Book of Five Rings, for example, makes a huge point that the greatest commander is the one who wins without fighting any battles (echoed in The Art of War).
Samurai were, on a whole, well-trained swordsman. They were as accustomed to fighting in their armor, with their weapons, as the Legionnaires were. The Samurai, though, were used to fighting one-to-one, looking for personal honor. The samurai 'style' of warfare was one of calling-out your opponent, stepping around your allies, and dueling till one was dead, then moving on. HUGE difference from the Roman 'lock shields and stand' model.
So, it would all depend on the type of battle, the intelligence of the commander, etc...

Everyone can agree, I think, that in one-to-one a generic, well-trained armored Samurai would crush a legionnaire handily.
In pitched battle? Since samurai armies were generally largely ashigaru (which really isn't a unit type anyway, just a rank), spear-armed or bow-armed peasants...no doubt well-versed in their weapon, but not hardened lifestyle warriors. I'd say in a mountainous-terrain battle, in Japan, the Japanese would win. They'd know how to get around even the tough Roman front. In an open field in capernum, Rome would likely win. They'd have the experience of such open battles that not even the best Japanese commander would have much of.


No,I disagree.Japanese armies did have a lot peasntry in them.But they did have Nagainta Samurai,they had a huge variety of units.I don't believe that the Japanese would lose that easily.The 4th battle of Kaminjakwa was fought on land.Matchlock were bought in as well.Despite the romans being led as a powerhouse army,they would have lacked leaders,effctive enough.Japanese armies consisted of what theri Damiyo chose.Everything was up to him,he ran the clan,so army formations would be different.Oda would have matchlock,ashaguri and others.Takeda would have cavarly,samurai,mostly peasntry and archers.

Each Damyio in Japan had a different way of organized their armies.Like I said,Samurai are highly trained swordsmen.Bow Ashaguri would have still been firing,and bring in matchlock,they would shatter a roman sheild wall.Bring thousands of samurai agsint a 1000 roman wall shield,lets see.It depends on the Leaders.Takeda would have seen the obvious advantage and Kenshin would have thought a 100 times to see how they would defeat their enemy.The Best Japanese commanders would have experince.I dont think they're fools to let a battle go on like that.

[Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout]

[QUOTE=Peasant Phill;2053357021]I've always wondered why the use of a shield never caught on in Japan ( was there a time shields were in use?). One would imagine that shields had their uses against two handed swords, spears and archers of course. I somehow doubt a no-dachi being able to easily overpower a legionnaire in formation, a shield wall is very effective. That's of course not to say that the battle would be very different on the flanks and not taking guns into account.[/QUOT

hmm,I think they would have been in use,only in the early periods of history,then it would have been abandoned.But what would happen if a samurai had two swords?
?

[Peasant Phill]

...But what would happen if a samurai had two swords?


I think you would have a hard time finding more than a few isolated cases of people dual wielding swords.

[NightwindKing]

No,I disagree.Japanese armies did have a lot peasntry in them.But they did have Nagainta Samurai,they had a huge variety of units.I don't believe that the Japanese would lose that easily.The 4th battle of Kaminjakwa was fought on land.Matchlock were bought in as well.Despite the romans being led as a powerhouse army,they would have lacked leaders,effctive enough.Japanese armies consisted of what theri Damiyo chose.Everything was up to him,he ran the clan,so army formations would be different.Oda would have matchlock,ashaguri and others.Takeda would have cavarly,samurai,mostly peasntry and archers.

Each Damyio in Japan had a different way of organized their armies.Like I said,Samurai are highly trained swordsmen.Bow Ashaguri would have still been firing,and bring in matchlock,they would shatter a roman sheild wall.Bring thousands of samurai agsint a 1000 roman wall shield,lets see.It depends on the Leaders.Takeda would have seen the obvious advantage and Kenshin would have thought a 100 times to see how they would defeat their enemy.The Best Japanese commanders would have experince.I dont think they're fools to let a battle go on like that.

Hi Takeda!

I hear what you're saying, and I agree that with the right leader(s), Japan could win.
My caveat was that the Roman force would have to have an intelligent, competent general, or the entire argument is moot (since their sucky generals REALLY sucked lol).
And the Japanese had a huge variety of units but that's my point...their variety means they never had an overwhelming number of any ONE thing. Yes they had a good number of awesome naginata samurai...they also had a good number of farmers with sticks. And samurai with bows. And farmers with bows. And merchants with cannons. And so on. A mixed force is useful, yes, in the hands of a skilled strategist, but ignoring gunpowder units, there's really only one way to break a tight, courageous shield wall like that of the Romans, and that's to either get around it (which I mentioned...naginata cavalry, for example), or to break through it. And my guess is that Samurai, unused to fighting against huge legion shields, would have a hard time breaking the lines unless the Romans slipped-up somehow.
I mean, in the end it comes down to who makes the first mistake: does the Roman commander falter and break the line or allow himself to be flanked? Or does the Japanese commander throw peasant troops at a hearty shield wall and try and wait-out the enemy? I mean, you can't walk through a shield wall...hence why it's called a wall. So someone's gotta give.

[NightwindKing]

I think you would have a hard time finding more than a few isolated cases of people dual wielding swords.

The real awesomeness begins when they wield war fans! :-)

[feelotraveller]

Hm.

To my mind the Japanese would take it easily. Why? Bows. (The better horsemen would also be important but perhaps not decisive from the start.) Those arrows would be penetrating the Roman shields. The mounted samurai would be devastating but the bows would be repeatedly decimating the Romans. This would force the Romans to charge, adding to the disruption of cohesion caused by archer fire. A (even slightly) disrupted Roman formation would be made mincemeat of by katanas charging from behind an spear frontline whilst mounted samurai mopped up the Roman archers, cavalry and leadership.

Oh, and shields weren't used by the samurai as the katana was used as a shield.

[NightwindKing]

Hm.

To my mind the Japanese would take it easily. Why? Bows. (The better horsemen would also be important but perhaps not decisive from the start.) Those arrows would be penetrating the Roman shields. The mounted samurai would be devastating but the bows would be repeatedly decimating the Romans. This would force the Romans to charge, adding to the disruption of cohesion caused by archer fire. A (even slightly) disrupted Roman formation would be made mincemeat of by katanas charging from behind an spear frontline whilst mounted samurai mopped up the Roman archers, cavalry and leadership.

Oh, and shields weren't used by the samurai as the katana was used as a shield.

Definitely. Japanese yumi bows have a much greater range and strength compared to Roman ones. I guess I just don't know enough about the composition of legionnaire shields, but my guess would be they're pretty thick, and I doubt that if a yumi arrow couldn't penetrate lacquer armor, it couldn't penetrate a tower shield. Just a guess. Assuming they couldn't, I don't think Japanese bows would help break a shield wall any more than charging samurai would: still comes down to the Romans' resolve.
On the other hand, if they COULD penetrate the shields...yeah the Romans are screwed. Their style of warfare is based on passive-aggression for at least the start of the battle. The Japanese speed would overwhelm them once their shieldwall broke.

[Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout]

Hi Takeda!

I hear what you're saying, and I agree that with the right leader(s), Japan could win.
My caveat was that the Roman force would have to have an intelligent, competent general, or the entire argument is moot (since their sucky generals REALLY sucked lol).
And the Japanese had a huge variety of units but that's my point...their variety means they never had an overwhelming number of any ONE thing. Yes they had a good number of awesome naginata samurai...they also had a good number of farmers with sticks. And samurai with bows. And farmers with bows. And merchants with cannons. And so on. A mixed force is useful, yes, in the hands of a skilled strategist, but ignoring gunpowder units, there's really only one way to break a tight, courageous shield wall like that of the Romans, and that's to either get around it (which I mentioned...naginata cavalry, for example), or to break through it. And my guess is that Samurai, unused to fighting against huge legion shields, would have a hard time breaking the lines unless the Romans slipped-up somehow.
I mean, in the end it comes down to who makes the first mistake: does the Roman commander falter and break the line or allow himself to be flanked? Or does the Japanese commander throw peasant troops at a hearty shield wall and try and wait-out the enemy? I mean, you can't walk through a shield wall...hence why it's called a wall. So someone's gotta give.

What if the Japanese commander tested this?What ,lets say he never saw a roman army before,so lets throw some ashaguri,ok,doesnt work,then send in the samurai and cavarly.

[Peasant Phill]

Oh, and shields weren't used by the samurai as the katana was used as a shield.

This you have to explain. Are you talking about parrying?

[feelotraveller]

This you have to explain. Are you talking about parrying?

Yes. Although parrying has always suggested to me the application of brute force rather than finesse... so maybe no as well!

[NightwindKing]

What if the Japanese commander tested this?What ,lets say he never saw a roman army before,so lets throw some ashaguri,ok,doesnt work,then send in the samurai and cavarly.

That's true. I guess I'm assuming that neither army has fought the other before. Basically, both commanders are going about the battle the same as they would as if they were fighting their most historically common foe.

[Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout]

That's true. I guess I'm assuming that neither army has fought the other before. Basically, both commanders are going about the battle the same as they would as if they were fighting their most historically common foe.

True.But in certain advantageousness,the Japanese would still win

[NightwindKing]

True.But in certain advantageousness,the Japanese would still win

Oh definitely. Yeah I think it all comes down to, like, terrain, general's competence, troop mix, and conditions (equal forces, weather, etc...). But basically my assumption is that the two forces are generally similar in overall strength, but certain things (as mentioned above) would easily hand the victory to one side or the other.
Basically, I think the odds of the Japanese winning go up about 80% if they're fighting in Japan, and the Roman's odds the same amount if fighting in Italy. Assuming all other factors being equal.

[Risasi]

While I have my doubts regarding the ability of the Romans to be extremely effective against a formidable Japanese force, I think it helps to look at the few examples we have of Japanese warfare against people groups not native to their island. Ultimately I think even if they won battles, they would have lost the war to a determined Rome. I also think it's undeniable that one of Japan's strongest forms of protection was simply geography. You have a large fortress island hard to attack with any significant sized army.

We have the Mongols. If most of their troops hadn't been sunk crossing the sea, there may be no Japan and this discussion might not exist. What battles did occur were so alien to the Japanese they really would have had a hard time with a large Mongolian force. They found arrows being fired en masse to be very disconcerting. Additional to that the mainland style of warfare wasn't "civilized" for their taste. I actually do believe their bushido code would hurt them long-term.

The Japanese also invaded Korea, with the intent of taking on China. I believe mid to late 16th century. They decimated much of the land and the indigenous population. However they lost a significant amount of troops also. Proving they were not some unstoppable elite force destined to rule the world. Soon thereafter they returned to their ways and went back to fighting amongst themselves. I find it telling that they were not able to effectively advance their empire very well beyond their island.

Does anyone know the population of Japan during heir feudal period? I'm wondering how large of an elite army they could raise whiteout completely destroying their civilization, their way of life, and still remain a distinct people group that wouldn't have been amalgamated into some other empire?

[Hamata]

Rome will win for sure through stricked disiplen and numbers and formations such as testoudo will pretect them from teppo

[jepp21]

I disagree,

As history has proven, roman armies work best in simple head-to-head battles, but i do not think that you have taken the full potential of the japanese in concideration

U might think that the battle will be a headlong japanese charge into the romans (banzai no-dachi madness), but in reality, the japanese used many different tactics to overcome their enemies. One thing is, that their vast veriety of agents would be able to asassinate roman generals, and obtain informatoin on the enemy better then the romans, and another thing is that the japanese used the terrain, weather ect. to their advantages in mulitple battles. If the japanese attacked a roman army on the march or at night, the romans would definately get beaten. If they surrounded the romans and forced them into breaking their deadly groups so the soldiers would have to fight as individuals, the japanese would beat them (refference to hannibals campaigns)

Now... i agree, that the romans would win as long as they would be able to maintain their formations, but when faced with mobility and superior tactics (as used by for example oda nobunaga, uesugi kenshin, and tokugawa ieyasu), the japanese would easily gain the upper hand

So in my conclusion, the roman army has to be forced into not being able to fight a frontal melee assault..... and the japanese were good at using "cruel" tactics

[Risasi]

I did a little research a few nights ago. The population of Japan during the Edo period grew from approximately 15 million to 30 million. Roughly 6% of the population were Samurai, and that doesn't include peasant army. I couldn't find demographics, but I would expect at any given time 1/3 to 1/2 of them would be able bodied warriors fit for warfare. Whereas at it's height the Roman empire had control of nearly all of Europe, parts of Asia Minor and North Africa. They were huge. The population under their thumb is estimated to be between 45m-130m people. The amazing part is that it appears their army never got larger than 450,000 strong. I do not however believe that included mercenaries. I could not find a number, but suspect that sometimes the the merc to main army ratio would be surprisingly high. But even if they could garner a large enough army I would expect it would be perceived as a threat to all of Japan and unify them long enough to expel any kind of outside Roman force. So, having discovered all this, and realizing that Japan actually might be numerically superior it changed my viewpoint considerably.

A: I realized this is a rather silly scenario. It just couldn't happen. I still don't know how Rome gets past the rest of Asia to go fight Japan. You might as well pit the English colonial armies traveling through time to fight against Terminators and Skynet.
B: Of the three scenarios given I don't believe Rome could win any one of them. The tech is just too disparate. Could they put up fights, and win battles? Yes, I believe they could, especially if they were somehow able to hire the east Asian armies to do their bidding. But now we're getting so far outside of the realm of possibilities it's silly.

A more reasonable scenario is Japan vs. one of the European Feudal powers.

[NightwindKing]

Well most of the typically 'feudal' European powers, say from MTW, were basically using Roman tactics with a Carthaginian focus...IE, walls of heavy armor advancing under cover fire, supported by the heavy cavalry charge. They were still more used to face-to-face massed battles, and I'd say the only real differences between them fighting Japan and the Romans fighting Japan would be better technology and a better use of heavy horse. So, most of the comparisons still apply.

[Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout]

I disagree,

As history has proven, roman armies work best in simple head-to-head battles, but i do not think that you have taken the full potential of the japanese in concideration

U might think that the battle will be a headlong japanese charge into the romans (banzai no-dachi madness), but in reality, the japanese used many different tactics to overcome their enemies. One thing is, that their vast veriety of agents would be able to asassinate roman generals, and obtain informatoin on the enemy better then the romans, and another thing is that the japanese used the terrain, weather ect. to their advantages in mulitple battles. If the japanese attacked a roman army on the march or at night, the romans would definately get beaten. If they surrounded the romans and forced them into breaking their deadly groups so the soldiers would have to fight as individuals, the japanese would beat them (refference to hannibals campaigns)

Now... i agree, that the romans would win as long as they would be able to maintain their formations, but when faced with mobility and superior tactics (as used by for example oda nobunaga, uesugi kenshin, and tokugawa ieyasu), the japanese would easily gain the upper hand

So in my conclusion, the roman army has to be forced into not being able to fight a frontal melee assault..... and the japanese were good at using "cruel" tactics

Finally!Someone that shares my opinions.

[smooth_operator]

I think you would have a hard time finding more than a few isolated cases of people dual wielding swords.
Oh, samurai in Battle Realms double wield their swords :D

[Dexter]

This is absurd.

Now to "answer" the original question "What are the advantages & weaknesses of Japanese against Roman warfare?"

Even if by a chance of timetravel/SCI-FI whatnot event a peak roman army (the best of the best) would encounter a Japanese army of the Sengoku period (no guns), you do have to realize that there are differences that cry to the heavens.

Equipment - do some research, without prejudice, have an opened mind, and do bear in mind that those weapons where used in different times. Some where specifically designed for a certain role.

A little something all "generals" should know is that a battle is not won on the field of battle, it is just settled there. If you do not understand this, than you have realized as I have, you still have much to learn.

If you are referring to military tactics, there are non.
Both sides have proven that they where able to adapt, incorporate, and developed ideas further.

If you are referring to the logistics and all other military aspects, again none.
Both have been using and most importantly changing, different approaches to different situations. Sometimes they tried it the hard way (using the same thing over and over again, becoming predictable), but then they where always defeated. I will not give you examples of these, as you should already know them as they are famous enough.

Before I say red the Art of War (yes I always do say that), or become a professor with tons of diplomas, you should not forget: much, indeed weary much depends on luck.

Lastly, the weapon of the samurai: the katana, that became most famous of them all, was actually used predominantly only in the EDO period (after 1610), as it was the symbol of power, carried together with a shorter sword - wakizashi -, and by then the samurai did not fight in huge battles, but one fought another in a duel. It was the last weapon to be drawn, a sidearm.
Again I could go on, but I'll stop.

If all this did made sense to you, then I have not written all this in vain. If not, I'm sorry to say you still have some misconceptions, then again I could be wrong, as I do know I have still much to learn.

With regards, a student of war

Dexter

P.S: I may have misspelled some words. Sorry.

[NightwindKing]

Dexter your points are all well made. But perhaps you could make them without simultaneously insulting everyone in the thread? ;-) lol. Saying "why thank you sir, I'll take this hamburger, it looks delicious, though you're an idiot" is not going to win over many hearts.

The 'battles are not won on the field" is a good point, but it depends on your interpretation of the word 'win'. And each general's definition of that will be different. Case in point: Yi Sun Shin sending his fleet to attack that of the invading Japanese. As far as I can tell, he would have considered the battle a 'win' if he had simply gotten them to turn around before they even fought. His goal was protecting the coast/his people, not simply exterminating the enemy.
On the other hand, I doubt Uesugi Kenshin would have considered his battles with Shingen 'wins' unless he had destroyed half his forces. Shingen was a powerful rival, and destroying his fighting power was paramount.

[Gregoshi]

Now to "answer" the original question "What are the advantages & weaknesses of Japanese against Roman warfare?"

...you do have to realize that there are differences that cry to the heavens...

...If you are referring to military tactics, there are non...
...If you are referring to the logistics and all other military aspects, again none.

Dexter, aren't you contradicting yourself here? All I got out of your post is "if you know and study warfare, you know the answer and if you don't, then I'm not going to tell you." Seriously, I'd love to hear you state your conclusion and the reasons for it. :bow:

[Risasi]

LOL

I will take Dexter's post about as seriously as this entire thread. Come now, sir. We are merely having a light-hearted what-if conversation.

And very perceptive Gregoshi. You put to words what I could not express fully in my own mind. With your logic I will be curious to see what rebuttal he could possibly provide.

Back on topic: I have gained more respect of the Japanese, having been provoked to look a little further into their culture during this time period. I won't say I have gained any admiration for their sense of ethics and nobility, but a certain sense of admiration for how earnestly their culture embraced this system of warfare. I find it amazing how many samurai there actually were, and how focused and disciplined they remained to adhering to their code of honor. I truly do believe it made them such a strong warrior class. When I initially read this this thread I though it might be plausible for the Romans to put up a decent fight, and win at least some scenarios. Now I don't believe they would win any of the three scenarios originally presented. Likewise, I still find it interesting that they never really made any significant headway expanding from the island.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

What is the strategic situation? The Romans usually got thrashed by their enemies several times before getting lucking / finding a competent commander. The trick was they could afford to lose a half dozen armies, but their enemies couldn't afford to lose once. If we put Japan in the Mediterranean or Gaul, I'd say the Romans would win in a few decades, though they'd pay dearly, particularly early on.

[leonardo davinci]

i think the japanese could win if they already fought them once. after they saw the shieldwall, they could figure out a way to destroy that wall and get men in hacking them down. they could have big trees with some branches left to hold them, and knock through the wall, so some men could get in and slay them. and the mangonels they had could use fire pots like in the game. that would set the wooden roman artillery on fire. and the romans had a high morale, only because they were in strong formation. once you broke the formation, you broke their morale. the samurai were trained not to fear death, and be willing to sacrifice himself for the country. there morale was in this way much better.

and remember, the japanese samurai have fought other great conquestors in the past, and they won. think of djengis kahn and his mongol army. he conquered all of china, mongolia and got to kiev. but his army was stopped by the japanese samurai. after all he'd conquered, he couldn't conquer a few islands, because of the skill and morale of the samurai.

[Oleander Ardens]

This certainly seems to be a rather light-hearted topic, but some posters seem surprisingly sure and are even coming up with precise numbers to back up clear predictions. Usually this is a sign that one has little knowledge in military and political affairs. Clausewitz, the father of modern strategic thought did for good reason point out the importance of the (changeable) political goals into which the military means get intermixed, the human and social element of warfare, the (changable) effects of chance, training, numbers, logistics, experience, fear, leadership, information (fog of war), friction, terrrain, weather, technology and so on. So far there is not even an consensus about the relative periods...

All one can say that any outcome would be highly situational.

OA

:bow:

[Dexter]

Dexter, aren't you contradicting yourself here? All I got out of your post is "if you know and study warfare, you know the answer and if you don't, then I'm not going to tell you." Seriously, I'd love to hear you state your conclusion and the reasons for it. :bow:


Yes it is contradictory as many thing s in life, perhaps I should have written if you are referring solely to military tactics. It seems I must apologize again, for not being able to properly express myself.

All I said was, do the research yourself and don't take as a fact someone interpretation of some events, things and so on as the word of God: "That is the truth and the only truth".
Westerners do tend to judge things prematurely, and misinterpret things quite often. Something that is a common day event for you can be considered offensive, rude by the other. But again, do the research yourself, and don't take my word on it.


Equipment - do some research, without prejudice, have an opened mind, and do bear in mind that those weapons where used in different times. Some where specifically designed for a certain role.

Armor: can a lorica lorica hamata stop a bullet ? Here's a little pointer for those of you whom don't have the time to investigate, the Japanese armor was not standardized as the roman one, in fact it was made for that person, often being also a symbol of wealth and social status. Just by looking at his armor you know it was an important person you are facing, + added bonus: it stops bullets.

The Japanese did not hide there "leaders", they wanted him to stand out, boosting the morale of the men, and yes to even taunt the enemy. You can certainly read more on a subject, and of course with more carefully chosen words then what I have written.

The weapons: ashigaru weapons where mostly standardized, but do remember that the Japanese smiths where not mass producing weak quality weapons, a man was proud of his work, and he did not want a low quality product to be associated with him. Please read more about how they folded, worked the metal.

The roman army was all about standardization, all should have the same equipment, it was not the individual men that mattered but the unit.

As stated by others the time difference is also an important issue. Things change, that witch does not change is facing extinction - again this may have no meaning for some of you, the fault is mine not yours -.

Perhaps one other factor might be the cultural difference, and despite of some statement the samurai would rather die then retreat, I must "enlighten" you, that bushido clearly states to throw away ones life without meaning is a dishonorable, shameful act. If by retreating you do more good, then by all means retreat. Otherwise the sengoku period would have lasted one day.
Rigidly interpreting the code of the samurai, the losers should have all cut there bellies, and be done with it. I'm certain that did not happen.
Before I go on, the morale code, conduct, demeanor etc - bushido - was not written in stone, it was expected of a man - individual - to fallow the "way of the warrior". For me that has a certain meaning, I can't possibly know what it mean for you, now can I ?

"if you know and study warfare, you know the answer and if you don't, then I'm not going to tell you" - yes, true, but not because I think I'm better then you, I think I'm not wise enough to tell you, as I have written I still have much to learn. Instead I encourage you to find your own answer and not rely on someone else's, as the "way" of discovery is a reward in itself - yet again I do realize this may not be true for all whom embark on this "way" -.

One last thing before I say farewell, do remember that Rome Total War and Shogun 2 are just someone interpretation of that era, not wanting to attack them of course, they made a game they intended to make money with. Do I need to go on ?

If anyone got "hurt" by my ill chosen words, I do apologize, it was not my intent, and feel free to ignore all I have written, as they are the words of someone less important then you.

Regards
Dex

P.S: I may have misspelled, missused some words. Sorry.

[Akka]

Not to be abrasive, but it seems quite a bit of people tend to make their idea about military history by extrapolating Hollywood movies and animes more than by taking an historian look. The fact that, due to very unique historical, geographical and cultural situation, the old japanese martial arts were partly preserved until today unlike in most of the world, tends to make people forget that samurais weren't the only one who actually developped complex and very evolved mélée skills, and that its not because Roman or Medieval martial skills have disappeared that they weren't just as good at the time.

Thinking the samurai as being some kind of god of warfare while everyone else in the world is just some kind of peasant with a sword is just grossly ridiculous. Medieval Knight were actually probably occidental clones of samurai, being like them a warrior caste of people bred for war from their very birth, fighting primarily on mount and looking down on "common" soldiers. They even shared the "fight as an individual rather than a unit" mentality. Despite the common mental picture of them being just big brutes hacking mindlessly until the foe was dead, knight had martial skills just as efficient and adequate as samurai's. It's just that their heritage became obsolete much earlier than samurai's ones, and has since passed from memory, while Japanese martial arts were far better preserved.
Spartans were just as much "bred for war" as samurais, so I doubt they were inferior in any way either.
Similarly, the reverence for katana as some kind of near-magical weapon able to cut through anything like butter, is just as much exagerated - as good a sword as it was, it's still a tool made of metal, and not some kind of lightsaber.

As such, you can bet that Roman legionnaries from the post-Marius era, who were professionnal, trained soldiers with a service that lasted for twenty years, weren't some kind of green mob ready to break at the first sign of trouble. They may not have had the "bushido" spirit, but they had draconian discipline and flawless organization. They probably were quite below samurai in personnal fighting, but that's because their training was not specialized in it, and on the other hand they certainly had a MUCH better level of fighting as a unit.

In the grand scheme of things, I'll bet on a professionnal army with good discipline and tactics, over a bunch of individual fighters, regardless of their individual skills. As said before, there is never a guaranted victory in war, and every single army lost several battle to opponents that were supposedly inferior in any way but, overall, history tends to reward leadership, technology and organization more than movie picture of badassery.

[Madae]

In the grand scheme of things, I'll bet on a professionnal army with good discipline and tactics, over a bunch of individual fighters, regardless of their individual skills. As said before, there is never a guaranted victory in war, and every single army lost several battle to opponents that were supposedly inferior in any way but, overall, history tends to reward leadership, technology and organization more than movie picture of badassery.

I agree with this. There is no doubt that, warrior to warrior, the Japanese were superior. But in terms of military strategy and tactics, I believe the Romans would come out on top in that fight. Japanese battle consisted of man-to-man, where Roman fighting and tactics consisted of army-to-army (if possible). Most of what the legion came across could not grasp this concept, and that is why they failed. Unless the Japanese were willing to adopt a different strategy (highly doubtful), they would have fell just like the rest. Some people probably look past this because they have a love of one culture and history over another, but the simple truth is there; the Romans were organized and trained to fight together - the Japanese were organized but trained to fight one on one. Knowing their disposition towards foreign ideas, it would not have been easy for them to adapt to such a different style of fighting. Just look at what happened during the Meiji Restoration; while the rest of the world was moving into the modern era, the Japanese up until that point were forcefully isolating themselves. It only changed when they were forced by the ruling classes to do away with the old ideas (which caused a civil war), and that is something that came with the empowerment of the peasant class - which is something the Romans had been doing a thousand years before them with citizenship.

On a side note; the Romans conquered much of their known world using the same tried-and-true tactics... the Japanese never made it past Korea. Granted they were much more isolated, but it just goes to show that if the Japanese were truly a powerhouse, they would have had much more luck getting out of Japan. They simply weren't unified, or cared, enough to do what needed to be done, which is something the Romans excelled at.

[Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout]

I agree with this. There is no doubt that, warrior to warrior, the Japanese were superior. But in terms of military strategy and tactics, I believe the Romans would come out on top in that fight. Japanese battle consisted of man-to-man, where Roman fighting and tactics consisted of army-to-army (if possible). Most of what the legion came across could not grasp this concept, and that is why they failed. Unless the Japanese were willing to adopt a different strategy (highly doubtful), they would have fell just like the rest. Some people probably look past this because they have a love of one culture and history over another, but the simple truth is there; the Romans were organized and trained to fight together - the Japanese were organized but trained to fight one on one. Knowing their disposition towards foreign ideas, it would not have been easy for them to adapt to such a different style of fighting. Just look at what happened during the Meiji Restoration; while the rest of the world was moving into the modern era, the Japanese up until that point were forcefully isolating themselves. It only changed when they were forced by the ruling classes to do away with the old ideas (which caused a civil war), and that is something that came with the empowerment of the peasant class - which is something the Romans had been doing a thousand years before them with citizenship.

Nope. The Romans ,despite being a professional force,did lack Generals. That was Rome had in its history,bad and good generals. The Chinese were far more advanced than the romans and they could have easily conqeured Rome. You are underestimating the Japanese,they did not lack in having good Generals.They wouldn't however ''fall'' to death. The Japanese would have rather died on the battlefield than give their life away.Look on the internet if you're not sure.

Just look at what happened during the Meiji Restoration; while the rest of the world was moving into the modern era, the Japanese up until that point were forcefully isolating themselves. It only changed when they were forced by the ruling classes to do away with the old ideas (which caused a civil war)

The Meiji Restoration wiped out the Samurai. They were forced into changing the modern world.Amercia and other european nations did bomb japanese cities. And that forced them to change.Otherwise they could have found a good use for the samurai.And Japan has not had one civil war,it has had civil war for centurys.Centuries. Japanese fudelism society was way better than European feudalism. Why,a mere peasent became one of Japan's most powerful general. You don't see that in feudalism Europe.And in belief to that Europeans deveploed Marital arts is a lie. There was no such thing as that,and it never existed.Look at Rome and Persia,or Grecce or Carthage,where was the maritial arts then?

Japanese tactics were better.It all depended on the Damiyo's organiztion,I don't think the Japanese were that foolhardy to be as you say they are. if it were one to one,that would be when direct in the battlefield.It very much as I am saying,depended on him.The Damyio.

[Gregoshi]

Devout, please direct your discussion at the topic, not at the person ("you"..."you"...."you"). By doing so, we can prevent a very interesting discussion from turning into a personal battle. Thanks.

[Madae]

lol, I think Gregoshi said it best. I don't have anything to say to you, Marshall. You're being far to confrontational with something that is purely speculation and open to personal opinion, which is exactly what everything you, and I, said - not fact; opinion.

[Kagemusha]

I agree with this. There is no doubt that, warrior to warrior, the Japanese were superior. But in terms of military strategy and tactics, I believe the Romans would come out on top in that fight. Japanese battle consisted of man-to-man, where Roman fighting and tactics consisted of army-to-army (if possible). Most of what the legion came across could not grasp this concept, and that is why they failed. Unless the Japanese were willing to adopt a different strategy (highly doubtful), they would have fell just like the rest. Some people probably look past this because they have a love of one culture and history over another, but the simple truth is there; the Romans were organized and trained to fight together - the Japanese were organized but trained to fight one on one. Knowing their disposition towards foreign ideas, it would not have been easy for them to adapt to such a different style of fighting. Just look at what happened during the Meiji Restoration; while the rest of the world was moving into the modern era, the Japanese up until that point were forcefully isolating themselves. It only changed when they were forced by the ruling classes to do away with the old ideas (which caused a civil war), and that is something that came with the empowerment of the peasant class - which is something the Romans had been doing a thousand years before them with citizenship.

On a side note; the Romans conquered much of their known world using the same tried-and-true tactics... the Japanese never made it past Korea. Granted they were much more isolated, but it just goes to show that if the Japanese were truly a powerhouse, they would have had much more luck getting out of Japan. They simply weren't unified, or cared, enough to do what needed to be done, which is something the Romans excelled at.

During Sengoku period Japanese warfare was nothing sort of man to man. If you would like to find a closest resemblance it would be pike and shot warfare of contemporary Europe of the time. After the Mongol invasions of 13th century Japanese warfare abandoned the poetic duels between samurais stating their names and calling out opponents of similar status. It was long gone at 16th sentury. The most absurd thing is that some of you really think that an army 13 centuries of evolution in equipment and tactics behind could win a more modern one. I will not go repeating myself, but still again, again and again stereotypes of japanese warfare of the 16th and 17th centuries pop up.

[Madae]

Wow, there are some seriously thin-skinned people here. It was an opinion, and a good one at that with plenty of solid points. Why are you getting so defensive and acting like I don't respect the Japanese because I made a simple choice? How about this; you guys invent a time machine, go back in time, and find out what would really happen instead of attacking my idea and claiming yours is right over mine. News flash; this is all conjecture. Yours is. Mine is. Everything is. Get over it, please?

And for the record, I really don't care if you want to argue my points, or if you think I'm wrong and want to tell me, but you could at least do it without sounding so bitter about it. It just makes you look childish.

[Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout]

Devout, please direct your discussion at the topic, not at the person ("you"..."you"...."you"). By doing so, we can prevent a very interesting discussion from turning into a personal battle. Thanks.

I am not doing anything to you.And it was directed at the topic.I have edited my post anyway.Aslo to Made. Your post didn't contain anything with solid points that I could agree with.

[Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout]

Wow, there are some seriously thin-skinned people here. It was an opinion, and a good one at that with plenty of solid points. Why are you getting so defensive and acting like I don't respect the Japanese because I made a simple choice? How about this; you guys invent a time machine, go back in time, and find out what would really happen instead of attacking my idea and claiming yours is right over mine. News flash; this is all conjecture. Yours is. Mine is. Everything is. Get over it, please?

And for the record, I really don't care if you want to argue my points, or if you think I'm wrong and want to tell me, but you could at least do it without sounding so bitter about it. It just makes you look childish.

Nope. The Romans ,despite being a professional force,did lack Generals. That was what Rome lacked in its history,Generals.The success of the Roman army depended on having a good general to lead them.While the Japanese put their damyio in the front,ready to boost morale. The Chinese were far more advanced than the romans and they could have easily conqeured Rome,they had a professional army as well,But it could have been a major series events of a battle. I think,somewhat you are underestimating the Japanese,they did not lack in having good Generals,because I think,lets say Japanese invasion of Korea.Toyotomi Hideyoshi is extremly lucky that the samurai he has in his army have been figthing for almost a decade.What does that provide him? Veterans. Hardenerd infantry.They wouldn't however ''fall'' to death. The Japanese would have rather died on the battlefield than give their life away.Look on the internet if you're not sure.

Just look at what happened during the Meiji Restoration; while the rest of the world was moving into the modern era, the Japanese up until that point were forcefully isolating themselves. It only changed when they were forced by the ruling classes to do away with the old ideas (which caused a civil war)

The Meiji Restoration wiped out the Samurai. They were forced into change towards what the modern world was demanding them too.Amercia and other european nations did bomb japanese cities,when I mean bomb they only fired a few shots on the cities,but it bought a massive change in Japan.I think they should have used the samurai as a unit in their armies,if you had bulletproof samurai,that would do,samurai fusliers? Using them would have been a great idea,but no one wanted them back in. And that forced them to change.Otherwise they could have found a good use for the samurai.And Japan has not had one civil war,it has had civil war for centurys.Centuries. Japanese fudelism society was a thousand times way better than European feudalism.You didn't have monks trying to convert people or you didn't have relegious wars in that time,for Japan ,really.It's like it was Japan itself was a big battlefield,and it has fought and fought for centuries(Quite good for the Japanese,as they inherited their ancestors genes and DNA) Why,a mere peasent became one of Japan's most powerful general,And that was toyotomi Hideyoshi,you would never see that in feudalism Europe.And in belief to that Europeans deveploed Marital arts is a lie. There was no such thing as that,and it never existed.Look at Rome and Persia,or Grecce or Carthage,where was the maritial arts then?I want see some proof that they did invent maritial arts. But the Japanese army did grow powerful,as shown in the last samurai.

Japanese tactics were better.It all depended on the Damiyo's organiztion,I don't think the Japanese were that foolhardy to be as you say they are. if it were one to one,that would be when direct in the battlefield.It very much as I am saying,depended on him.The Damyio.

[Kagemusha]

Wow, there are some seriously thin-skinned people here. It was an opinion, and a good one at that with plenty of solid points. Why are you getting so defensive and acting like I don't respect the Japanese because I made a simple choice? How about this; you guys invent a time machine, go back in time, and find out what would really happen instead of attacking my idea and claiming yours is right over mine. News flash; this is all conjecture. Yours is. Mine is. Everything is. Get over it, please?

And for the record, I really don't care if you want to argue my points, or if you think I'm wrong and want to tell me, but you could at least do it without sounding so bitter about it. It just makes you look childish.

Dont get me wrong.It is nothing personal towards you. Just your statement concerning the nature of Japanese warfare of the period is false one.There are no emotions attached into that.If it sounds like that i apologise.

[Akka]

The most absurd thing is that some of you really think that an army 13 centuries of evolution in equipment and tactics behind could win a more modern one.
The most absurd thing is that you hold this reasoning of "it's 13 centuries later, so there is 13 centuries of technological advances".
It's not because something happens centuries after something else, that technology is in any way necessarily better - technology doesn't happens everywhere at the same time, or we would not have had things like English riflemen fighting spear-wielding Zulus.
It's especially egregious considering it was already pointed out to you.

[Kagemusha]

The most absurd thing is that you hold this reasoning of "it's 13 centuries later, so there is 13 centuries of technological advances".
It's not because something happens centuries after something else, that technology is in any way necessarily better - technology doesn't happens everywhere at the same time, or we would not have had things like English riflemen fighting spear-wielding Zulus.
It's especially egregious considering it was already pointed out to you.

Maybe then you would like to explain me how wrought iron is superior to steel? or cavalry without stirrups compared to cavalry with stirrups?Japanese and zulus were not really comparable level of technological advance compared to Europeans when they first met or were they?Please show me one example in which ways Romans were more advanced to 16th century Japanese in military technology and then we can continue from there.

[Akka]

Maybe then you would like to explain me how wrought iron is superior to steel?
Maybe you would like to explain how you jump from 'happening' later does not mean the technology has improved linearily with iron is better than steel ?

I pointed that your reasoning is bogus. You can either back it up (hint : you can't, your reasoning was faulty) or correct it (this you can, by pointing the ACTUAL points where 16th century Japan and Rome had differing technologies, but in this case try to be objective and not just list some japanese advantages, blow them out of proportion, and forget every advantages the Romans could have had), but using logical fallacies like the one above isn't going to cut it.

Japanese and zulus were not really comparable level of technological advance compared to Europeans when they first met or were they?Please show me one example in which ways Romans were more advanced to 16th century Japanese in military technology and then we can continue from there.
Well, I could point that they were far superior builders, especially military builders - able to raise a fortified encampment from scratch in half an afternoon, and to make astounding siege fortifications on the spot with astounding engineering in incredibly short notice.
But anyway , Roman advantages never came from their technology, but from their organization. The technological advantages of 16th century Japan (save for gunpowder, but it's out of the picture for now) were rather marginal, and though it would give an edge on such or such point, I highly doubt it would deeply change the balance between the two forces.
Not only Romans were incredibly organized and disciplined, but they also had a lot of practice and adaptability. They fought LOTS of different neighbours, in the end came out on top, and had ample opportunity to fine-tune their methods and organization. Samurais, on the other hand, fought primarily between themselves, with just a bit of fighting in Korea (which they eventually evacuated) and with Mongols (which were defeated by weather rather than arms). Not to say they were bad, but one side clearly had more varied and tried-and-true experience than the other.

[Kagemusha]

Maybe you would like to explain how you jump from 'happening' later does not mean the technology has improved linearily with iron is better than steel ?

I pointed that your reasoning is bogus. You can either back it up (hint : you can't, your reasoning was faulty) or correct it (this you can, by pointing the ACTUAL points where 16th century Japan and Rome had differing technologies, but in this case try to be objective and not just list some japanese advantages, blow them out of proportion, and forget every advantages the Romans could have had), but using logical fallacies like the one above isn't going to cut it.

Well, I could point that they were far superior builders, especially military builders - able to raise a fortified encampment from scratch in half an afternoon, and to make astounding siege fortifications on the spot with astounding engineering in incredibly short notice.
But anyway , Roman advantages never came from their technology, but from their organization. The technological advantages of 16th century Japan (save for gunpowder, but it's out of the picture for now) were rather marginal, and though it would give an edge on such or such point, I highly doubt it would deeply change the balance between the two forces.
Not only Romans were incredibly organized and disciplined, but they also had a lot of practice and adaptability. They fought LOTS of different neighbours, in the end came out on top, and had ample opportunity to fine-tune their methods and organization. Samurais, on the other hand, fought primarily between themselves, with just a bit of fighting in Korea (which they eventually evacuated) and with Mongols (which were defeated by weather rather than arms). Not to say they were bad, but one side clearly had more varied and tried-and-true experience than the other.

You are nitpicking. I told you that your zulu comparison was invalid and your excuse does not work with developed societys.
I always thought that Western Roman Empire grumbled 476 and Eastern Roman or the shadow which was left of it 1453. This is news to me that Roman empire survived and instead topped all their foes.

About military buildings. Do you know which stone base was one of the remaining structures in Hiroshima after the A-bomb was dropped there?Maybe you would then like to enlighten the rest of us, how Japanese camped during military campaigns, how they handled their logistics.How big armies they could field? Which kind of command structure they had? I can tell you about the Romans as i have been very interested of them for a quite long time. To me your post seems like that you know the Roman side of things, but not much about what you are actually arguing against?

[Madae]

Dont get me wrong.It is nothing personal towards you. Just your statement concerning the nature of Japanese warfare of the period is false one.There are no emotions attached into that.If it sounds like that i apologise.

You were putting words in my mouth by saying what I meant by "man to man" was "some dude calls out some dude and they have some typical Hollywood style battle because that's the way ninjas and samurais did it". And I know you did that because you hate being wrong and in an argument with people that don't agree with you (which you started). I'm sorry I insulted your love of the Japanese culture and your need to be right every time your infallible opinion gets challenged, but everything you said is theory riddled with mixed amounts of fact and fallacies, topped with a nice portion of fanboy and a preference of the Japanese over the Romans. It's really that simple, and this argument is not worth my time.

And sorry Marshall, I refuse to talk to you. I can feel my brain cells dying when I read anything you say.

For the record; what I meant by "man-to-man" was; armies clash, one guy picks out a target, kills or is killed, and then moves on to the next - rinse and repeat (and much like the Medieval era). Roman fighting was not about letting one man run off on his own and choose his targets. Get rid of everything you know about weapons and armor and just stick with this idea (it's true; Roman weapons and armor were very lackluster and cheap, mass produced exactly the same for every soldier, but they did not rely on it entirely like a Japanese warrior would). It was about cohesion, and bringing the unit to the fight, where one man defends the next and opportunities against the enemy are taken advantage of as a whole (shield out, stab, shield in), as well as; rotating lines to combat the fatigue of the man in front, and defensive formations (Testudo) for various occasions. About the only thing I can see that the Japanese have that historically caused problems for the Romans is horse archery (stirrups would undoubtedly aid in that), but everything else they have is easily comparable to the dozens of different peoples the Romans conquered.

[Akka]

You are nitpicking.
You got nerve to say this considering you have so far completely avoided every main ideas exposed, to just refocus on some little details, purposingly ignoring their meaning and then twisting them to make bad strawman. Your entire answers are built upon it, and you have the audacity to actually accuse OTHERS to do it ?

Seems you're just attempting to "win" and not really to have a discussion. That's just pointless and childish, so I don't see any reason to waste more time with you.

[Kagemusha]

DOUBLE POST.

[Kagemusha]

You were putting words in my mouth by saying what I meant by "man to man" was "some dude calls out some dude and they have some typical Hollywood style battle because that's the way ninjas and samurais did it". And I know you did that because you hate being wrong and in an argument with people that don't agree with you (which you started). I'm sorry I insulted your love of the Japanese culture and your need to be right every time your infallible opinion gets challenged, but everything you said is theory riddled with mixed amounts of fact and fallacies, topped with a nice portion of fanboy and a preference of the Japanese over the Romans. It's really that simple, and this argument is not worth my time.

No need for personal attacks. Please do elaborate where i am wrong? What have i said that is not true? And what i that a talk about hollywood combat? There was no jab towards you. You are seeing things that arent.Before the Mongol Invasions the Japanese warfare was somewhat ritualistic, but with the lessons learned from it.Their warfare developed. Lesson learned that everybody are not fighting with your rules. Tell me what theories i have put to the table.All i have been talking in this thread is about how Japanese waged war, please show me where i have said something that is not supported by historians. I have been reading history as hobby for more then 15 years. I have nothing against Romans and like i said before in this thread.If we would pit a contemporary European army of similar size.I would bet my money on the Europeans.

The same goes to Akka. Point me out the hypothesis in what i have said? Also to you.I am not attacking you but your ideas. Defend them with facts and we can have a real conversation.

[Madae]

Are you really trying to act like a victim? But seriously, you care about this more than I do, which is funny considering it can't be proven either way and is, again, only conjecture - you really do want to win an argument that can't be won. It's not worth the effort to discuss/argue it with you. Your "15 years of history reading as a hobby" really doesn't mean jack in the greater scheme of things, since you know nothing about me or Akka. The mere fact that you brought it up as if it gives you more credibility does more to hurt your argument than help it.

[econ21]

This thread started out interesting - I learnt a lot. :bow:

But now the discussion is getting intemperate and generating more heat than light. Time for the topic to take a nap.

Anyone wishing to continue the debate can open a thread in the Monastery, which is a more appropriate forum.

But please try to be charitable and friendly in debate. ~:grouphug: