Samurai vs. Janissaries

[Kongamato]

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

[Sjakihata]

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

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

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

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

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

[solypsist]

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

[Acronym]

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

[Basileus]

Quote[/b] (solypsist @ Jan. 18 2003,17:11)]Samurai would have lost against just about any European counterpart in the related timeframe.
i tend to agree with ya on this..especialy jeni ceri´s http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[Taohn]

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

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

[deejayvee]

Quote[/b] (Taohn @ Jan. 20 2003,21:24)]
Quote[/b] (solypsist @ Jan. 18 2003,17:11)]Samurai would have lost against just about any European counterpart in the related timeframe.
From about mid 1400's to mid 1800's probably, but prior to that, I think the samurai would have mopped the floor with any European army.
Could you guys please give reasons as to why you say that?

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

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

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

[Efrem Da King]

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

[Leet Eriksson]

since a janissary carries a longer weapon then thats it for samurai boy http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif i would'nt be surprised if the samurai complained that the janitor carried a longer mop than him http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

[Lord Krazy]

How about Samuri v Gallowglass

http://mysite.freeserve.com/lordkrazy/images/2-picture1.gif


Kung Fu v Punk Rock http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

LK http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smokin.gif

[Sjakihata]

"I have opinions, strong opinions,
I just don't always agree with them."

G W Bush

did he really say that?

Sorry to be OT

[Oaty]

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

It's not the size its how you use it http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

1 key factor I see is that Europeans adopted the shield and the Japanese as far as I know almost completely ignored it. From what little I know I think Oda Nobunga was about the only 1 who considered a shield and I don't know if any of his army tried or used it in battle. I have read though that Oda Nobunga looked more like a European Knight than that of a Samarai when dawned in full battlegear. From what it seems Nobunga adopted christianity out of faith and not for power and the few Daimyos that did adopt christianity seemed they did it for power and not out of faith

[ah_dut]

Gah naginata mop your stupid janissary asses. Or Yari for that matter, u know where my vote goes http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-2thumbsup.gif

[Cebei]

This depends on what type of Janissary unit you are referring to. Janissary corps were comprised of several different Janissary units, from swordsmen to musketeers.

Janissaries did not use swords as standalone, as Turkish famous "yatagan" sword is quite inferior to samurai "katanas".

The only Janissary troop type that could stand a chance against samurai on 1-on-1 are the Zirhli Nefer (Janissary heavy infantry in the game) as they wore chainmail and wielded polerams. I guess Zirhli Nefer s would win after a difficult battle, with many casualties.

On the other hand when you think about a battle between an army comprised of all units of Janissaries against an all Samurai army, Janissaries would win fairly easily because of their flexible tactics (heavy reliance on horse archers) and countering the same tactics with the use of firearms.

[The Sword of Cao Cao]

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

Western arrogance, coupled with ignorance is a dangerous thing.

[katank]

samurais didn't exclusively use swords.

I would count on their superior morale.

samurais also have combined arms.

as for longer range, if the samurai managed to close, then the polearm guy is screwed.

it's the same sword vs. pike argument.

if you get past the point, you practically won as a swordsman.

[Ragss]

weren't samurais some of the most skilled archers in history? Especially while oh horseback?

[ah_dut]

I agree with ragss the samurai did use a version of the longbow and did use horsearcher tactics extensively

[Suppiluliumas]

Quote[/b] (The Sword of Cao Cao @ May 30 2004,22:18)]
Quote[/b] (solypsist @ Jan. 18 2003,17:11)]Samurai would have lost against just about any European counterpart in the related timeframe.
*sighs*

Western arrogance, coupled with ignorance is a dangerous thing.
Care to elaborate?

[Leet Eriksson]

Quote[/b] (Suppiluliumas @ June 04 2004,16:50)]
Quote[/b] (The Sword of Cao Cao @ May 30 2004,22:18)]
Quote[/b] (solypsist @ Jan. 18 2003,17:11)]Samurai would have lost against just about any European counterpart in the related timeframe.
*sighs*

Western arrogance, coupled with ignorance is a dangerous thing.
Care to elaborate?
It does'nt really need any explanation,europeans rely mostly on heavy cavalry,their infantry is basically support,the japanese however seem to be using alot of combined arms(spearmen,massed archers,heavy cavalry).

[Suppiluliumas]

All well and good, but that in no way explains his comments. Maybe the lad should speak for himself?

[Leet Eriksson]

Quote[/b] (Suppiluliumas @ June 04 2004,17:11)]All well and good, but that in no way explains his comments. Maybe the lad should speak for himself?
good point...but from what i can understand,the poster Solypsist made a comment that upset him,wich in return called it arrogant/ignorant.Although Soly could have been sarcastic,but did'nt worded it correctly or had smilies in his post.Also from what i can understand,he is obviously interested in Asian history.

As for his comment,well its kinda true....my comment is not exclusivly directed to western historians,but to every historian.

[The Sword of Cao Cao]

Yes, I'am interested in Asian history. I'am part Japanese, and have been researching the samurai and Japan itself for several years now. And it makes me laugh and sigh at the same time when I see such arrogance from stuck up Westerners. No offense. So any European counterpart could take on a samurai? Well, how many European counterparts took on Mongols, and lived to tell the tale? First we have the mounted samurai yumi-ya, or mounted archer. A man who has trained extensively in the arts of archery and horseback since early childhood. Equally skilled with the bow as well as the horse, the samurai yumi-ya fought exactly like a Mongol horse archer. And we all know how they fared against the Europeans. Or the samurai musketeer. When the gun arrived in Japan it wouldnt work in the rain. The Japanese immediately perfected this for thier rainy country, and made rain proof one. Europe very rainy country. Boom. Dead European counterparts. These are just a few examples. Also what if this counterpart happens to be a conscripted peasnt with a pitchfork and a tunic and little reason to actually stay and fight. When the ashigaru peasant warrior had the prospect of becoming a samurai, and superior spears and sword and guns as well as good armour.

[Nowake]

The yumy-ya samurai were pretty well dealt with even by Takeda's light cav. armed with lances.

And the yumi-ya it's an art perfecting the close-shots from horseback, no way the samurai could have adopted the hit-and-run mongol and tatar tactics. The jannisaries were very good archers also btw. Still, the samurai would have won in front of janissaries because of one thing: armour.


As to Europe being a rainy country, well, that didn't stop the most outrageous of carnages long before the japanese held a musket in their hands.

[zelda12]

In terms of armour and equipment the samurai and western powers were completely different. Samurai wore light armour that allowed them to be more flexible in combat to use their fearsome swords. Whereas there western counterparts wore heavy armour because most europeans carried big huge meat cleavers that were used like meatchoppers so being flexible didn't count for much plus they all rode horses to get around so heavy armour and more protection where a trade off for flexibility.

However The core of a japanese army would of been the warrior elite of samurai whereas in european armies the majority of the troops were proffessional mercanary armies for hire that honed their skills through years of nonstop fighting. As to combined arms tactics both cultures developed their own tactics to deal with their own situations.

If jannisaries went up agaisnt samurai I'd say that samurai would win.