Roman Legions vs. Japanese Samurai

[DemonArchangel]

Trajan Era Legionaries
vs.
Feudal Japanese Samurai

[kataphraktoi]

Samurai gets sharp blade stuck in legionary shield, Legionary uses short but effective stabbing gladius and plunges deep into the Samurai' stomach.

[mercian billman]

As I understand(Im no expert on Samurai) the Samurai were trained to fight as individuals. The legionaires on the other hand fought as a team.

For the samurais to win they would have to fight the legionaires in a forrest or other ground unsuitable for the Legions theres no way they could win a battle on a open field against Legions.

[magnatz]

Samurai would have made kickass gladiators http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[Ludens]

True, samurai were a warrior caste whose fighting was similar to the Gauls. But they did have superior equipment. You cannot compare troops of the first part of the first millenium with sixteenth century samurai The quality of their equipment just differs to much.

[Knight_Yellow]

realisticly the romans where far superior equipment wise.







legion wins any day.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] ]realisticly the romans where far superior equipment wise.
Wrong http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif

Their coordination as a disciplined group would win the day, not their equipment.

The japanese Katana is quite able to cut through a Lorica Segmentata and although the japanese lacquered armour isn't very well suited to keep the Gladius from perfurating it, both situations aren't even a close aproximation of one another.

First, what kind of samurai are we talking about?

Yari?
Foot archers?
Naginata?
No-Daichi?

Veterans or not? Their trainning varied a lot

[Basileus]

/me imagines 1000 legioneries vs 1000 samurai hhm well those 1k samurais would kick some serious ass http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif

[Knight_Yellow]

Quote[/b] (Aymar de Bois Mauri @ Jan. 10 2004,23:51)]
Quote[/b] ]realisticly the romans where far superior equipment wise.
Wrong http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif

Their coordination as a disciplined group would win the day, not their equipment.

The japanese Katana is quite able to cut through a Lorica Segmentata and although the japanese lacquered armour isn't very well suited to keep the Gladius from perfurating it, both situations aren't even a close aproximation of one another.

First, what kind of samurai are we talking about?

Yari?
Foot archers?
Naginata?
No-Daichi?

Veterans or not? Their trainning varied a lot
samuria weaponry was good for 1 Vs 1 combat.


for acting as a team they would have been better off with elastic bands and a large stick.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] ]samuria weaponry was good for 1 Vs 1 combat.


for acting as a team they would have been better off with elastic bands and a large stick.
Do you really think so?

I think that wouldn't be true by the end of the Sengoku period.

[spmetla]

The Roman Cavalry would easily be defeated by Japanese cavalry which would mean the Roman flanks would be wide open. Roman Artillery would have been interesting to see in action against Japananese Cavalry. The Romans would have been forced to have keep their Cavalruy in close to be well supported by Auxilia units especially some spearmen and archers.

[Nowake]

Quote[/b] (mercian billman @ Jan. 10 2004,07:19)]As I understand(Im no expert on Samurai) the Samurai were trained to fight as individuals. The legionaires on the other hand fought as a team.

For the samurais to win they would have to fight the legionaires in a forrest or other ground unsuitable for the Legions theres no way they could win a battle on a open field against Legions.
Maybe samurais were sometimes undisciplined when it came to engaging combat, but they surely knew how to fight as a group http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pat.gif Think of the battles from the Sengoku period.

[Rosacrux]

Interesting comparison but as otherd have noted before, the Sengoku era Samurai equipment is far superior to anything the legions had.

If we go for a full-fledged Legion (with auxiliaries, cavalry, "artillery" and support) against a of a similar size Samurai army, the Japanese win hands down. They got better equipment, are more capable individually and have superior cavalry and archers.

The Legion is not a phalanx- whose strength was the wall of pikes (or spears earlier) - it depends too much on the individuals merits and strengths to be considered anything close to a "tight" formation.

OTOH, if you compare RTW to STW, RTW wins hands down http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif

...or so I hope...
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smokin.gif

[Stefan the Berserker]

The Samurais would run into Trajan Legions aslike they were a Meat-Chopper. The Legionaires were a strong force in the Ancient throughout they were very numberous, all Equipped professionally and tought how to stay in Formation.

The drilled Chop-hidebehindeshield-Chop Swordfight Style of Romans teached at the age of 20 can't be compared with Kendo teached from the age 4

[Tachikaze]

Even assuming the Japanese do not get to use their teppo, I would give the edge to them. My reason is their superior mobility and flexibility.

I think it would be a close match, however.

[Parmenio]

I imagine the legionaries would slaughter all the peasants, and then deal with the out numbered elite samurai. Knowing the Roman's they'd probably buy off at least a few Japanese warlords to join their side, and then proceed with the old divide and conquer. And woe betide any Japanese warlord who retreated to his castle - very bad move.

Of course this assumes a Roman Eurasian Empire invasion of Japan scenario. The reverse, a Japanese Asian Empire invasion of Western European might look like a repeat of the Mongol Invasion.

[Hakonarson]

most Samurai were not supermen, and the battle would go to the side most effectively led.

The Samurai were mostly ARCHERS of course, at the time being talked about, both on horse and foot - Romans were used to taking arrows :)

At short range the volley of Pila would ahve been a problem for the samurai - lacking shields they might have had a very difficult time of it, and the standard katana was probably no more capable of chopping a scuta to bits than any otehr decent sword, and is no use defensively when attacking.

However the "fight to the last" mentality of the samurai might give them soem moral advantage if hte fight got bloody - as it certainly would of course.

there's no reason to suppose Roman cavalry would be any worse than samurai horse archers AFAIK, while roman carrobalistae might have been useful for provoking a premature charge before the Samurai archery could become effective.

There are too many possible tactical +'s and -'s so I'll go with leadership as the decisive element.

[Crimson Castle]

Please do not overhype the Samurai warriors.

Not all samurai swords have "light-sabre like" qualities. Thats like saying all Japanese cars are made like the Subaru WRX quality, and have "superior turbo charged V8 killing machines HORRRHH".

Or for that matter calling all Japanese Samurai master swordsmen is like calling all Japanese WRX drivers - F2 rally champion drivers. I'm sure they think they are but... :)

Here are two excellent articles on the subject.

http://www.thehaca.com/essays/knightvs.htm

http://www.thehaca.com/essays/hype.htm

[solypsist]

the Samurai would win if he didn't use this sword:

http://www.nihonto.ca/Knives.mpeg

right click save as to get the video

[Bezalel]

If Rome really wanted Japan, they could've had it. Rome had many, many more troops than Japan (maybe even more troops than Japan had people). They were however some very skilled samurai. One, Kanamori I believe, was reported to have 208 kills under his name.

[DemonArchangel]

eh, well by the time of the sengoku period, rome wasn't around anymore

[Chimpyang]

I reckon the Samurai would have won, Samurai weaponary at that time was quite advanced in terms of comparing against Roman technology. Also the Samurai tactis would have won the day..whats better than scaring your wits out of the enemy and slicing him to bits with your Naginata/Sword/Whatever. Also the Samurai army would also have contained Gunpowder which i dont think the romans knew about too much...

[squippy]

I say samurai wipe the floor with Rome and take minimal casualties, and thats even assuming they have no gunpowder.

Because, what has been ommitted here is they can always default back to Horse-Archer mode... this is the base Samurai role anyway. Gallop about till lots of Romans are dead. The big bow is as powerful as a longbow and would likely have the same AP abilities.

[The Sword of Cao Cao]

Quote[/b] (kataphraktoi @ Jan. 09 2004,22:31)]Samurai gets sharp blade stuck in legionary shield, Legionary uses short but effective stabbing gladius and plunges deep into the Samurai' stomach.
WRONG

Samurai slices through shield and Legionare's heads goes flying. Leginare armor would have done very little good at all against samurai. Plus you would usually see much more Yari troops. So these guys run up to the Legionares and impale them while that short gladius waves about 10 feet away. Mounted archers skirmish the flanks in much the same way as Mongols and Huns. While Naginata cut through Roman troops in much the same way as a Falxman.

[Nelson]

A katana would fair no better on a scutum than a Gaul's sword would. The shield is a big advantage for the legionary. Japanese weapons were not magical. Nor were all samurai zen swordsmen.

Samurai would look for individual combat and never find it unless the Romans broke. A consul’s legion was greater than the sum of its parts. A taisho’s army was the sum of its parts.

Romans certainly knew how to deal with spears. The yari is a pike not unlike those common in the Mediterranean world. Samurai were also not known to fight in formation much and this is where spears shine. Ashigaru did that. If our hypothetical battle includes ashigaru then the over all morale of the Japanese force must suffer accordingly.

The samurai would attack like Germans or Gauls, screaming and charging. The Romans would stoically wait before unleashing pila into shieldless adversaries clad in armor that would not defeat so massive an impact. Initial samurai casualties would be dreadful. I suspect that Japanese armor would fair much better against a gladius however. It would be an ugly fight.

Ultimately I believe that legions would be as superior to samurai armies as they were to European warrior tribes. Gauls and Germans did beat legions from time to time of course because Roman victory relied on methodical discipline and tactics along with decent command. With the right conditions the samurai could certainly prevail. Enough brave and skillful men could never be counted out in pre-gunpowder combat. That said, my money would be on the boys from Italy.

[caspian]

Quote[/b] (Nelson @ Feb. 19 2004,22:47)]Samurai would look for individual combat and never find it unless the Romans broke.
You should read more on how the Daimyos fought their wars. Its true that the samurai would look for single battles and would give their names, lineage and such but that happens in skirmeshes and not in the great battles (like Sekigahara). In the field, the General's command was abosolute. How did Uesegi Kenshin, Takeda Shingen, Oda Nobunaga and especially Tokugawa Ieyasu became famous generals if their wars were just one glorified brawl.

A consular army of four legions would be a trouble for the Samurai but there are certain weakness in the legion: the short sword, the Romans were never great horsemen, and a man holding a large shield would be slower than someone wielding a light longsword. The Samurai could out manouvere the Romans easily.

[squippy]

I agree, Samurai battle order is fully organised.

Furthermore, it should be pointed out that the Samurai horse-archer is a development of the Steppes horse archer after they were exposed to the Mongols. Now I point out, the Chinese did defeat horse nomads pretty consistently early on with rather Rome-like armies, but they did it because they had the crossbow, which the Romans did not (and even then, the Chinese ultimately lost). Against a horse nomad army, the Romans are deficient in cavalry, archers, and mobility. They are doomed.

[Crimson Castle]

Please bear in mind that there is 300 - 400 year time lag between the Roman legionaire and the Samurai warrior.

[Hakonarson]

More like 1000 years, and there's nothing wrong with a short sword and shield - without a shield the Samurai is very vulnerable to having his sword blocked by the shield and then getting stabbed - any re-enactor will tell you the same.

Samurai armies were not horse nomad armies - Samurai may have been horse archers, but they were not light cavalry in the mould of the Mongols or huns or Parthians - their armies contained huge numbers of Ashigaru - usually about 2 per Samurai, and many Samurai were deployed as foot archers.

[Nowake]

But very effective foot archers. As to the army composition, just 1 to 2? Maybe only untill the Onin war.

[Tatsumaru Rokkaku]

welp,...its really hard to tell,...but my guess is that Samurai wins,...

Besides the technological advantage, Samurai also has a very long military tradition. They trained their whole life just to perfect their skills with a bow and sword as well as their discipline. Think about it, the Samurai cast was founded and devoted soley for warfare, while the majority of Roman Legionaires were recruited among the peasants and land owners of recently conquered territory.

Samurai did fight individually sometimes, but that also gives them an advantage as it wouldn't make any difference on how they fought even as their numbers are being depleted during battle. If a single Samurai had enough skills to take on a greater number of opponents, imagine thousands of Samurai all looking for heads to bring home as a trophy...

Legionaires do have an advantage because they have shields. But that also makes them a lot slower. Samurai are known to be relatively quick using their Katanas, which also gives them an advantage over Legionaires.

[Seven.the.Hun]

hmm, samurai vs. legionaire...
well as far as samurai go...dont forget that u are dealing with men who might just perform seppuku upon defeat...rome was never as effective at producing men with such...balls if u will...the discipline levels are all off aswell...

[squippy]

Quote[/b] (Seven.the.Hun @ Feb. 25 2004,06:11)]hmm, samurai vs. legionaire...
well as far as samurai go...dont forget that u are dealing with men who might just perform seppuku upon defeat...rome was never as effective at producing men with such...balls if u will...the discipline levels are all off aswell...
Actually I disagree; Rome had a practice of refusing to ransom its own men if they were captured by the enemy and treating them as deserters instead, so this was pretty harsh discipline. Also, later Roman practice included Decimation, which was a pretty harsh disciplinarian measure. I do think there are differences, but I'm not sure they are vast in this respect.

[Nelson]

Quote[/b] (squippy @ Feb. 26 2004,07:58)]I disagree; Rome had a practice of refusing to ransom its own men if they were captured by the enemy and treating them as deserters instead, so this was pretty harsh discipline. Also, later Roman practice included Decimation, which was a pretty harsh disciplinarian measure.
I agree with this disagreement http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wacko.gif

The legionaries give nothing away to anyone regarding discipline.

[Leet Eriksson]

Tactically speaking,aside all logistics and strategy talk,a unit of roman legionnares can defeat a unit of samurais.considering the numbers are the same,also both on a flatland,well basically,first of all,Phase 1:Archery Duel,the Tortoise formation was specifically made to withstand arrows,and it will take sometime for samurai archers to break a powerful formation as the tortoise formation,next is the Phase 2:The Charge,since the samurais considered fighting with a sword much more honourable than fighting with a bow,they would charge the roman unit that was earlier showered with arrows,since the romans don't have the same mindset,they'd rather send some javelins(pilums)in the way of the samurais before commiting to hand to hand.Phase 3:The main event,ok now the battle is a total mess you don't know whose who,or whats happening i'll just leave this phase to other poeple who wants to decide the end results.

Phase 4:the End Result:

1.If the Romans win,the samurais make a run for it,and probably commiting sepuko therafter becuase of the dishonour they made in the last battle.

2.if the Japanese Samurais win,the romans effectively deploy "the Hare" formation,its a pretty effective formation for retreating,the romans retreat to their posts,hopefully regrouping and coming back to fight the samurais another day

Seeing as how both have a different mindeset,even if the romans lose,they could regroup and go back and fight,the samurais will eventualy commit suicide and the romans will take over japan at long last bringing the entire world to peace....well not the entire world,they'll have to wait for a christopher columbus or some other equivelant of him to take over the entire world

Please note:seeing as how this post was made nothing is serious in it so don't take it seriously http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif

[Gawain of Orkeny]

The technological improvements alone would give the samurai a huge advantage.In the later stages didn't they have guns and cannon?

[Seven.the.Hun]

another issue is roman loyalty...as well as samurai unity...samurai especially, with incorporated and viable tactics and forces from all the samurai clans would be a supreme force to be reckonned with, as was unified roman groups...such an interesting hypothetical quarry...
oh well, my vote is still with the samurai with no disrespect for those grungy effecient romans

[Seven.the.Hun]

and yes, of course, not as much of a timeframe conflict as the # of years indicate perhaps, yet still an offbalance...
isolated japan indeed could appear back a slice compared to the outside world tactics at the time...

[squippy]

Quote[/b] (faisal @ Feb. 26 2004,13:38)]

Quote[/b] ] Phase 1:Archery Duel,the Tortoise formation was specifically made to withstand arrows,and it will take sometime for samurai archers to break a powerful formation as the tortoise formation

Agreed, but the Tortoise had never encountered a 7-foot recurve composite bow, and I seriously doubt it would have been able to resist. I frankly doubt that the lorica segmentata would have resisted them either.


Quote[/b] ] next is the Phase 2:The Charge,since the samurais considered fighting with a sword much more honourable than fighting with a bow,they would charge the roman unit that was earlier showered with arrows,

No not at all. Before the Mongol invasion, Japanese warriors fought primarily as single combatants in the Heroic military tradition. And the Mongols gave them a very severe spanking. After this, the horse archer became the most prestigious form of military practice as the war-winning arm. And after that, the emphasis swung to the sword again as Japans geography is not terribly suited to mounted archer combat after all.

But this is NOT a heroice tradition like that of the Celts that goes in and flails away. Remember, the Japanese sword is a highly specialised tool and used without a shield - obviously, then, you only make the one cut, and that cut finishes the fight. The moral of the story is, this is an army fighting on a totally different doctrine to that of the Celts, and would not IMO be defeated by the same techniques.

For the remainder, you overestimate the role of seppuku in military life. To commit sepuku without your lords direct consent is also dishonourable and will get the remainder of your family thrown on the street. A warriors life is NOT his to dispose of - it belongs to his Daimyo, and only the Daimyo.

As it happens, I took some pictures of a model of a fully equipped Japanese horse archer at the Leeds Armoury recently, which I guess I could upload if anyone wanted to see them.

[Crimson Castle]

Quote[/b] (Gawain of Orkeny @ Feb. 26 2004,23:37)]The technological improvements alone would give the samurai a huge advantage.In the later stages didn't they have guns and cannon?
Oh good golly gosh. Don't talk about muskets now.

You might as well compare the WW2 Italian Army vs the Japanese Samurai.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I said that was in the letter stages but my point was that there is a big technological gap in any point of history between the two as in the example of the sword and bow

[Shigawire]

Come on.. Let's not forget that the Japanese had hi-quality STEEL

Also, their army command communication systems were fairly advanced. The Daimyo even used large flip-card signs set up in certain places to transmit complicated messages. Like a calender, they flip the cards over the top and a different one is visible.. Each flip-card has a pattern of holes. This pattern is read by the unit leaders on the manipular level, who then executes orders.

So, if the Daimyo/Taisho was proficient, I see no way for the Romans to win. Besides, we are indeed comparing an army 1500 years older than the other. When the topic was established, we knew very well the extent of this hypothetical comparison. And yes, they CAN be compared as in -which is better- :P

The Japanese Samurai lords naturally have many generations more experience than the Romans have. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-party2.gif

[Hakonarson]

The Japanese had SOME high quality steel - msot samurai blades were very ordinary.

the Romans also had good steel from Spain - in both cases the manufacture of steel was essentially accidental - in some places natural advantages gave arise to better iron ores than others - India and Spain were two such places - the Gladius Hispanicus was "the spanish sword" as much because of teh quality of Spanish "iron" as because of its origins - it was adopted from the Carthaginians when Scipio captured New Carthage in 208 (I think it was) and persuaded teh Spanish swordsmiths to continue working for Rome.

[Hurin_Rules]

Some things to consider:

Stirrups. Samurai had them, Roman cavalry didn't. This gives the edge in cavalry to the Samurai. Cannae anyone?

The Charge. Why would Samurai make it? Just defeat the Roman cavalry, stay at a distance and pick off the straglers. Carrhae anyone?

In short: if the Samurai don't close, they win or draw; if they decide to close, they lose.

[Leet Eriksson]

I was speaking of one unit of legionnares and one unit of samurais,both on ground not riding anything..

EDIT:Typo..

[Hurin_Rules]

Anybody else reminded of the Cavemen vs. Astronauts debate in last week's episode of Angel here? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

[|OCS|Virus]

I dont know much about samari, but I know a a good bit about the way a roman army works. I am asuming we take 100 legionars Usualy legionares would be led by a centurio but this is just a controled senario. and for the japanese side we will take 100 foot soldiers. now assuming this is a totaly flat terran and they both went strait into eachother without turning the Romans shields would probably absorb some of the initial shock thus giving them the advantage. but I would wager that there segmenta armor would not hold its own against the Japanese katanas. So assuming they are using there pilums those would probly not hold for long before they took there swords out. then they would eventualy be forced into sword-to-sword combat. Of course the Romans would still have there shields. Then I think the battle would turn in favor of the japanese, as there skills with the swords are pretty hard to deny. at this point I think the Japanese would have 60 men and the romans would have 50 or so. Because the katana is a two handed sword I belive, and the romans only had one hand on there swords, and as a result would be pushed around a little easier. then the romans would probably use there shields and push them back, cutting at them as they do it at this point I think there would be more romans maybe 30 legionares to 20 samari. I think by this time though the numbers are so small that the Japanese get an advantage but I dont think that it would be a big enough advantage for them to win. so in a battle with only there foot troops I think the romans would win. But this is purley speculative. Personaly I like both romans and japanese.

[DojoRat]

A good what if thread. One plus for the Romans not mentioned is that they had more experience fighting different nationalities. Their veteran centurions would have seen a wide variety of weapons and fighting styles. The Japanese, however, primarily fought each other.

The Romans might have been better able to see the strengths of the Samurai and adjust accordingly. they had faced armies with good archers and expert swordsmen before but the Japanese had never seen anything like the romans.

In other words, after the Samurai had soften up the Romans with their archery and were going in for the kill would they have recognized the pila as a throwing spear until it devastated their front ranks?

[The Sword of Cao Cao]

yah, they fought the Mongols, who used Korean spear throwers. belive me the samurai would know what it was for, because the samurai had a javelin of thier own. the uchi-ne.

[RZST]

meh, didnt the legionnaires wear skirts?
i mean their legs arent all that protected while the samurai had full armor covering the important areas o.o;

if you take 1 unit of legionnaires and 1 unit of samurai of equal number.. hmm
the legionnaires would stay in formation while the samurai would most likely surround them...i think..well it makes sense.

besides its leadership that counts :)

[RisingSun]

Except for he fact that the veteran legionaries were on the flanks. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

The Japanese in general are very resource-poor at this time, whereas the Romans have the resources of an entire continent(actually, more) . Hispanic steel. 'Nuff said.

As well, Japanese leather armor would do little to stop a pilum or a gladius.

And lets not forget- the Romans had TWO pila each.

The experience also factors in here, like somebody said. The Romans had faced enemies similar to samurai before, but the samurai had never seen the likes of a Roman military.

And whoever said the long bows would penetrate Roman armor AND a shield- You think an arrow could punch straight through a CURVED shield, AND go through lorica? Don't think so. IT would probably glance off the shield due to the angle.

[RZST]

i thought this was a 1 on 1 battle?
like 1 group of legionnaires agains 1 group of samurai?

not whole armies of them O.o;

if its armies then my prediction would be that in the early meetings samurai would have greater casualties since they dont have any shield BUT they will probably learn from their enemy and then adopt shields :)


Quote[/b] ]The Japanese in general are very resource-poor at this time, whereas the Romans have the resources of an entire continent(actually, more) . Hispanic steel. 'Nuff said.
-wait, what japanese period are we actually talking about and what roman period are we also taking about?

[DemonArchangel]

Senguko Japanese vs. Trajan Roman

[jkaney55]

Interesting thread...
I have my oppinion, but it swings both ways depending on the situations...
But here are some things to consider (especially those people who think the Katana is an earthly form of Luke's Light Saber):

"... It is therefore somewhat sobering to find that in the harsh reality of samurai warfare the Japanese sword was never that highly regarded. All samurai carried swords and used them to good effect, but in battle no samurai ever relied soley on his sword. Nor were all swords of the superlative quality that traditional views would have us to believe. Broken blades are frequently reported, and a samurai could also be put at a disadvantage when his sword got stuck in the body of an opponent that he had just killed." - Dr. Stephen Turnbull
"Samurai: The World of the Warrior" Osprey Publishing, 2003

(for those unfamiliar with Dr. Turnbull, he is hailed as the world's leading expert on samurai)

Another thing to remember when comparing mobility, the Lorica Segmentata give the user more flexability with his torso and abdominal movements than the samurai.

It is also good to keep in mind that while a samurai archer was extremely accuarte (even while on his horse), the shot arrow often had a rough time penetrating even the occipitalis (which means the Roman shield would easily absorb, especially in testudo)

[Cebei]

I believe we would watch a meat grinding session undertaken by the samurai. Romans only have to wish to kill as much Japanese as possible with their archers and artillery before Japanese close in with swords. And when they do, they will tear through thight legion formations. And as samurai dont fight closely, Roman cavalry cannot function very effectively.

[jkaney55]

What? A ? ?
AAA ? ?
AAAA ?
H ?
H ?
H ?
H
0
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-confused.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-inquisitive.gif
How does samurai not being able to fight
in close formations inhibit Roman cavalry?

[squippy]

Quote[/b] ] (for those unfamiliar with Dr. Turnbull, he is hailed as the world's leading expert on samurai)

Worlds foremost expert is a bit strong; hut I have read Turnbull yes.

Poor quality blades: defineitely true. OTOH, the Samuirai constituted a much bigger proportion of the populace than their feudal counterparts, and mass produced many poor blades. The mystique is associated with relatively rare master-work blades. But it is still an extremely good, powerful-cutting design.

That, and the methodology for its use is designed toward its strengths, not its weaknesses; its a 'one perfect cut' philosophy

Blades getting stuck: This can happy to any sword or blade thrust into a person or animal. It certainly happens to rapiers and norman swords too.

I agree non samurai ever relied purely on his sword. It is a mistake to see the Samurai as a one-trick pony.


Quote[/b] ] It is also good to keep in mind that while a samurai archer was extremely accuarte (even while on his horse), the shot arrow often had a rough time penetrating even the occipitalis (which means the Roman shield would easily absorb, especially in testudo)

I say "nonsense"; the draw weight on those bows is more than that of a longbow, and that can penetrate plate armour.

[VikingHorde]

I think in a one vs. one fight, the Samurai vin becouse of supperior training.

[oblivious maximus]

Hard to catch a Roman alone.

your possibly right, but we are talking about the basic legionare v. an expert swordsman. There is not an endless supply of those and the legions will keep coming.

Nelson posts it for me.
"A katana would fair no better on a scutum than a Gaul's sword would. The shield is a big advantage for the legionary. Japanese weapons were not magical. Nor were all samurai zen swordsmen.

Samurai would look for individual combat and never find it unless the Romans broke. A consul’s legion was greater than the sum of its parts. A taisho’s army was the sum of its parts.

Romans certainly knew how to deal with spears. The yari is a pike not unlike those common in the Mediterranean world. Samurai were also not known to fight in formation much and this is where spears shine. Ashigaru did that. If our hypothetical battle includes ashigaru then the over all morale of the Japanese force must suffer accordingly.

The samurai would attack like Germans or Gauls, screaming and charging. The Romans would stoically wait before unleashing pila into shieldless adversaries clad in armor that would not defeat so massive an impact. Initial samurai casualties would be dreadful. I suspect that Japanese armor would fair much better against a gladius however. It would be an ugly fight.

Ultimately I believe that legions would be as superior to samurai armies as they were to European warrior tribes. Gauls and Germans did beat legions from time to time of course because Roman victory relied on methodical discipline and tactics along with decent command. With the right conditions the samurai could certainly prevail. Enough brave and skillful men could never be counted out in pre-gunpowder combat. That said, my money would be on the boys from Italy."

[VikingHorde]

Quote[/b] (oblivious maximus @ April 16 2004,20:44)]Hard to catch a Roman alone.

your possibly right, but we are talking about the basic legionare v. an expert swordsman. There is not an endless supply of those and the legions will keep coming.

Nelson posts it for me.
"A katana would fair no better on a scutum than a Gaul's sword would. The shield is a big advantage for the legionary. Japanese weapons were not magical. Nor were all samurai zen swordsmen.

Samurai would look for individual combat and never find it unless the Romans broke. A consul’s legion was greater than the sum of its parts. A taisho’s army was the sum of its parts.

Romans certainly knew how to deal with spears. The yari is a pike not unlike those common in the Mediterranean world. Samurai were also not known to fight in formation much and this is where spears shine. Ashigaru did that. If our hypothetical battle includes ashigaru then the over all morale of the Japanese force must suffer accordingly.

The samurai would attack like Germans or Gauls, screaming and charging. The Romans would stoically wait before unleashing pila into shieldless adversaries clad in armor that would not defeat so massive an impact. Initial samurai casualties would be dreadful. I suspect that Japanese armor would fair much better against a gladius however. It would be an ugly fight.

Ultimately I believe that legions would be as superior to samurai armies as they were to European warrior tribes. Gauls and Germans did beat legions from time to time of course because Roman victory relied on methodical discipline and tactics along with decent command. With the right conditions the samurai could certainly prevail. Enough brave and skillful men could never be counted out in pre-gunpowder combat. That said, my money would be on the boys from Italy."
I agree, the roman empire will win the war, just like the russians vs. germans in ww2. If the japanese kill 10/1 and the romans train many more than they lose, the romans win. The japanice can't train enogth samurai.

[jkaney55]

I think the biggest debate may be in what the questions is asking in itself.
I think many of us would agree that one on one, a samurai (as in the elite warrior class) would normally defeat your typical run-of-the-mill legionnaire (while individual skill would have to be considered generic as there were probably some extremely highly skilled legionnaires as well). But if that is the case, it is unfair to compare the elite of one society to the basic troop of another. If a comparison were made between a samurai and a praetorian, or a gladiator (well, you get the idea), then it would solely depend on the individual skills of the two opponents.

However, if we are comparing armies, then you can't just assume that the army from feudal Japan comes taylor made with thousands of horse archers, samurai and has no Ashigaru. That would be comparable to saying every American soldier is a Navy SEAL, or every Soviet soldier was Bloc, or every British police officer is a MOD Agent like James Bond. This would therefore be an unfair comparison as well, especially since Ashigaru was the mainstay of a Japanese army (often at times of a ratio of 10:1).

My best guess is that that the Japanese elite warrior samurai were probably collectively better than Rome's elite. However, I sincerely have to say that Rome's legionnaires severely outweigh the Japanese ashigaru.

I give both sides A+ for leadership (not on an empire level, Japanese win that hands down). Both sides had shrewd tactics, and great methods of communication.

[Nowake]

My best guess is that that the Japanese elite warrior samurai were probably collectively better than Rome's elite. However, I sincerely have to say that Rome's legionnaires severely outweigh the Japanese ashigaru.


But you miss the point. The legionaries were the roman elite, as the samurai were the elite of the japanese army. There were elite samurai units just as the romans had the triarii or praetorians (the ones that protected the generals, not the later imperial ones, of course). The roman "ashigaru" were the auxiliaries, the numerii units.

[jkaney55]

Somewhat true, Legionnaires were professional troops, yes, but even the Auxilaries were train at a much higher level than ashigaru. They were more than mere levied militia, as they actually had the occupation of "soldier."

[squippy]

Some Roman soldiers had that professionalism during some periods - but not all, all the time. Yes, Rome had an idea of a formal standing army which is distinct from that of fedualism, and more organised, but equally I don't think that any society had as high a degree of formalised martial arts as Japan. Theres no equivalent of the rival schools and dojos in the Western context.

And its not the case the Japanese armies were ill-disciplined like that of the European barbarians, either. They understood gunpowder faster, and the castle design is very sophisticated.

[Nowake]

This is completely wrong.

The auxiliary were not militia in any way. They were troops provided by subdued tribes and nations. The auxiliary troops were on many occasions capable of defeating the roman legionary. They were not cannon fodder, but complementary troops.


The ashigaru, on the other hand, were peasants who entered in the military service. Poorly trained. Nothing more. The may have studied the "way" of the lance for a year or so, but that didnt't made them in any ways too much of a threat to the average samurai, unless in greater numbers.

[DeadRunner]

Nowake is right the Auxiliary troops where "the utility belt "of roman many times auxiliary was formed by others races and cultures ,and more important with expierence with there natural weapons and skills (like the German cavalry that Caesar had against the Celts).
Don't forget that a legion was formed by the standard legionare and that was the spear(we Portuguese don't say Pila(this is another meaning in PT)) ,the shield ,the Gladius,and the regular equipment .


sincerely i think one vs one maybe the samurai was the winner, but a legion against a samurai army i put my hands in the roman victory, but by other hand id it was in the barbarian invasion I don't know but almost certainly was the Samurais victories, don't forget in this time the empire was eating each other and the well trained Veteran legionaries where rare, don't forget that the Roman started to evac the troops of several regions like Britain.

[squippy]

No, I disagree again - for SOME PERIODS auxiliaries were properly trained, but not for the entire duration of the republic and then the empire. Rome new ful well, for example, that it was deficient in cavalry and did not try to retrain cav auxiliaries who had their own methods. Later Auxiliaries were much more regulated, granted.

[DeadRunner]

I agree with you in cav topic that is why they used the Germans and others races with the skill of cavalary.

[bighairyman]

I put my money on the Samurais, they were centuries ahead of the romans( the romans weer gone by that time), A samurai uses two long steel swords, with excellent training in all sorts of weapons, plus they had great disciplined, even more than the best legionnaire, in my opinion.

And Legionaries weapons and armors weren't that great, sure, they have great shield and chinemail, but those shields are made of wood with some iron(?) coating, plus the short sword isn't that great, by the samurai period standards.

those Germanic cavalries were that great, they were all light- medium cavalry. If Rome had band together and work hard, they could have defeated them, but sadly they didn't

[RollingWave]

First of all Samurias don't just fight one on one, anyone who's saying that should just leave this thread now as they obviously know nothing about how japanese fought war.

And not factor in resource and number... Japanese would win easily, Roman are using a tactic that's a a whole thousand year out of date while the japanese used a relatively effective tactic for it's days, (which had developed from beating all the old tactics) Japanese had way superior calvary and archers not to meantion manuverability and flexibility as a whole... as long as the japanese weren't lead by morons that tell all his soldier to dismount throw away their bow and impale themself against the legions they would have a hard time losing..... Roman legion at it's highet did not have to face bows of that quality nor real heavy calavary .

The whole one on one tell name things is not for a real battle, it happens more during stand offs when both side camp and individual challange to duals to try to gain some moral advantage ........ it also happend much less as the time goes into the sengoku age.....

[Sjakihata]

Naturally the samurai will win.

The question was Trajan legion vs. Samurai army in SJ. That means the samurai have access to teppo, or muskets.

They would line up, infront of the army, waiting. When the romans eventually began their advance, because superior japanese cavalry and horse archers were destroying the roman flanks, they would have to advance.

When in range a combined volley upon volley of bullets and arrows would maul the romans. A japanese bow is very strong and can penetrate armour, even japanese armour.

Now the romans would have two options, charge or retreat. For the fun of it we say they charge, but they would probably retreat because guns scared them.

When they get close, their pila is an advantage, but only a one time use. It would work well, but the armour would stop a lot of them as well.

About formations and samurai only attacking and fighting individual fights. This is somewhat true, PRIOR to sengoku jidai. Hideyoshi, and other generals, redefined the caste of samurai. And because of war a lot could become samurai, you did not need a influential family. But samurai knew very well what a good formation meant, and saying they have no capability of not taking on a formation is pure nonsense. Especially in SJ the japanese developed good formation tactics.

And these samurai knew how to fight large armies.

Also to take into accout, japan in sengoku jida had ca. 20 millions inhabitants, that is a lot.

Leadership, prior to the battle, the roman general was found dead, a ninja (with ultra good equiptment) snuck in and killed the general (why shud the army not use the ninjas?)

and a general like Ieyasu or Shingen would know how to command.


--------

Ok, maybe this is a bit biased towards the japanese, but with guns, superior morale, leadership and equipment I would think the japanese would kick roman butt http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-jester.gif

edit:

if we are talking 1v1, I would pick Miyamoto Musashi, he'd beath the crap out of caesar himself http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-yes.gif

[SwordsMaster]

I think the advantage is on the japanese side, because their cavalry had stirrups, and so was heavier, and more effecive, so the roman flanks would have a really tough time.Testido formatio wouldnt really protect you against heavy cavalry charging at your rear.


In the other hand, in h2h combat, the romans would probably give the japanese a tough job.The katanas need space to be properly wielded, but the tight roman formation wouldnt let them use the swords effectively, that, plus the fact that a legionare had a shield would give the advantage to the romans.

About bows. The stronger bow is, the stronger the bowman had to be to use it, so there would be VERY few people that could use a bow (as a bow not as a wooden stick) that could trespass a scutum and the lorica.In the other hand, the romans might have had other missile units such as those balearic guys the carthaginians used so much, or their own archers that even less heavily armoured than the japanese, still would do some damage if properly used.


And if you have FLAMING PIGS, the japanese would be scared and flee. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-jester.gif

[Sjakihata]

dont forget that samurai wielded two swords, katana and wakizashi (sp?) which is a short sword.

edit:

you got a point about the pigs tho ;)

[Crimson Castle]

Not all Japanese Samurai swords had light sabre like qualities. Read here - http://www.thehaca.com/essays/hype.htm

Also consider that the Japanese - generally speaking with a few exceptions- are pretty slow to adapt and change.

[ah_dut]

If the thread is about 1v1 Then Miyamoto Musashi as mentioned before would whoop soe roman ass. However, 1000v1000 The money is on the Romans sorry everyone http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-2thumbsup.gif

[squippy]

Quote[/b] (Crimson Castle @ May 26 2004,10:57)]Not all Japanese Samurai swords had light sabre like qualities. Read here - http://www.thehaca.com/essays/hype.htm

Also consider that the Japanese - generally speaking with a few exceptions- are pretty slow to adapt and change.
Hmm, unfortunately I regard a lot of what the HACA has to say on this matter as hype. They appear to have a very resentful and pro-European agenda and I consider them far from unbiased.

If the Japanese are slow to adapat and change, its difficult to understand how they went from a medieval economy to one that is abouty 10 years ahead of the west technologically in about a century.

[Sjakihata]

I totally disagree about the statement, that japanese are slow to adapt changes.

When they ran into guns, it took them little time to copy the technique and make better guns than europeans.
A lot of other such examples exist, especially regarding military/tactics.

Of course Japanese are a very traditional people, traditions going long back and a very delicate culture. But that they cannot adapt changes when necessary is a lie, just think of all the christian daimyos.

[Somebody Else]

When fighting in a shield wall - like the Romans pretty much do, the emphasis is not on waving your sword about. It's a pushing match, with a bit of stabbing through the shields. Or down into anyone unlucky enough to fall over. Having a long sword such as a katana would be a disadvantage, especially as it's a two-handed weapon, so no shield. Of course, there would be adaptation by the Japanese, but in the initial clash, the Romans would probably take the field.

One on one, a samurai would probably win - due to the greater reach of the katana. If missile weapons were used, a bow greatly outranges a pilum, so the samurai could keep dancing out of the way of the legionary, lumbered with all that armour, whilst firing arrow after arrow at him.

[Crimson Castle]

Quote[/b] (squippy @ May 27 2004,21:38)]
Quote[/b] (Crimson Castle @ May 26 2004,10:57)]Not all Japanese Samurai swords had light sabre like qualities. Read here - http://www.thehaca.com/essays/hype.htm

Also consider that the Japanese - generally speaking with a few exceptions- are pretty slow to adapt and change.
Hmm, unfortunately I regard a lot of what the HACA has to say on this matter as hype. They appear to have a very resentful and pro-European agenda and I consider them far from unbiased.If the Japanese are slow to adapat and change, its difficult to understand how they went from a medieval economy to one that is abouty 10 years ahead of the west technologically in about a century.

Hello? I did say - "generally speaking with a few exceptions".

Of course they made great advances in the Meji and Showa period. But the fact remains that the Japanese did not choose to modernize until it was forced upon them. It literally has to take a climatic event like Perry's "visit" or two A-bombs for them to change.

[Crimson Castle]

Quote[/b] (squippy @ May 27 2004,21:38)]
Quote[/b] (Crimson Castle @ May 26 2004,10:57)]Not all Japanese Samurai swords had light sabre like qualities. Read here - (http://www.thehaca.com/essays/hype.htm)

Also consider that the Japanese - generally speaking with a few exceptions- are pretty slow to adapt and change.
Hmm, unfortunately I regard a lot of what the HACA has to say on this matter as hype. They appear to have a very resentful and pro-European agenda and I consider them far from unbiased.
Well maybe - but they are simply questioning the extreme over the top admiration of the Japanese samurai swords in the West. Check it out - in movies like Kill Bill, Highlander, and in comics like Frank Miller's Electra - the Japanese swords are able to cut thru all manner of things without becoming nicked, broken, or worn out. In the article http://www.thehaca.com/essays/hype.htm - the author simply questions this extreme idea that the samurai sword has some sort of mythical powers that overcome the physical qualities of steel.

If you think the article mentioned is full of hype and the author has his facts wrong- I challenge you to refute the argument - with facts and not opinions.

[The Sword of Cao Cao]

Quote[/b] (Crimson Castle @ May 27 2004,11:01)]
Quote[/b] (squippy @ May 27 2004,21:38)]
Quote[/b] (Crimson Castle @ May 26 2004,10:57)]Not all Japanese Samurai swords had light sabre like qualities. Read here - http://www.thehaca.com/essays/hype.htm

Also consider that the Japanese - generally speaking with a few exceptions- are pretty slow to adapt and change.
Hmm, unfortunately I regard a lot of what the HACA has to say on this matter as hype. They appear to have a very resentful and pro-European agenda and I consider them far from unbiased.If the Japanese are slow to adapat and change, its difficult to understand how they went from a medieval economy to one that is abouty 10 years ahead of the west technologically in about a century.

Hello? I did say - "generally speaking with a few exceptions".

Of course they made great advances in the Meji and Showa period. But the fact remains that the Japanese did not choose to modernize until it was forced upon them. It literally has to take a climatic event like Perry's "visit" or two A-bombs for them to change.
Go read up on the Battle of Nagashino and Oda Nobunaga, and tell me they were "pretty slow and reluctant to change" Guns got there. Boom. Japanese Napoleon. Boom. Japanese are manufacturing more guns than any European country in the world. All used by SAMURAI.

Go check read up on how they fought before the Mongol invasions.

Then go read up on how this all changed maybe 10 years afterwards.

So the ancient, primitive barbaric samurai warrior doesnt change? They took advantage of all sortsa stuff. And the reason the samurai resisted the Meiji era, was because of disrespect and the way Japan was destroying her own culture. Not because of new warfare. The samurai also used modern clothing, modern weapons coupled with older ones, which worked splendidly I might add, during the actual rebellion. Dont believe everything in The Last Samurai (great film though).

I'm on a mission to end Western arrogance and ignorance. And I'm going to educate every last one of you guys if it kills me.

About that sword article, thats a bunch of Euro-Trash. Notice, while "de-hyping" the katana, they only blabbered on and on about Europeans. What about Arabs hmm? We forgotten about Damascus scimitars already? Chinese? They dont get very much attention and yet the Japanese viewed some of thier blades as an equal to the katana.

[squippy]

Quote[/b] (Crimson Castle @ May 27 2004,11:21)]

Quote[/b] (squippy @ May 27 2004,21:38)]
Well maybe - but they are simply questioning the extreme over the top admiration of the Japanese samurai swords in the West.

The ALLEGED over the top admiration. Thats why I described as resentful; I regard it as an agenda arising from the 'Nipophobia' that appeared in Western media in the 80's (Black Rain, Rising Sun et al)


Quote[/b] ]If you think they are biased and their facts wrong- I challenge you to refute their arguments, unless you yourself have sort of overbearing infatuation for the samurai sword.

Well, any points in particular? I say they are attacking a straw man; the reputation of the katana is not undeserved, for all that many inferior baldes were made. One egergious error in HACA documentation is the claim that Japan did not have solid metallic armour and that the katana was therefore not prepared for dealing with full plate.

[Crimson Castle]

Quote[/b] (squippy @ June 01 2004,22:18)]

Quote[/b] (squippy @ May 27 2004,21:38)]
One egergious error in HACA documentation is the claim that Japan did not have solid metallic armour and that the katana was therefore not prepared for dealing with full plate.[/QUOTE]
What are you talking about? The thehaca article mentioned the use of armor by the Japanese -

"The Japanese made good swords, but they also made very good armor. Many of the suits have plates of the same steel as the sword blades. The front of the plates was just as hard as the sword edge, while the back was soft and springy."

http://www.thehaca.com/essays/hype.htm

[Crimson Castle]

Quote[/b] (The Sword of Cao Cao @ May 31 2004,18:35)]Guns got there. Boom. Japanese Napoleon. Boom. Japanese are manufacturing more guns than any European country in the world. All used by SAMURAI.
Really? Japan producing more rifles than the Europeans? Where did you quote the source from?

And pray tell what happened after the Tokugawa clan united Japan? Did Japan continue to modernize?

[squippy]

Quote[/b] (Crimson Castle @ June 01 2004,04:42)]"The Japanese made good swords, but they also made very good armor. Many of the suits have plates of the same steel as the sword blades. The front of the plates was just as hard as the sword edge, while the back was soft and springy."
Yes, I'm aware of this, as I have read many of the HACA's articles. In another forum for another hobby, I have discussed this with some folk close to J. Clemens; as I say I feel a 'spin' is put on the intepretations they provide.

http://www.thearma.org/essays/knightvs.htm is an example of this; fully metallic armour is ommitted from the discussion.

[Crimson Castle]

Sorry, you have to elaborate more.

The other article that you referred to says

"Though the earliest styles of samurai armor were designed with large square plates more as a defense against arrows, the later forms were intended primarily to be used by and against similarly equipped swordsmen and to lessen the tremendous cutting capacity of their swords. It was durable, effective, and provided for ample movement."

The main thrust of thehaca is to bring about a sense of perspective into medieval studies. There is considerable popular sentiment for the Japanese samurai as seen in movies like "Last Samurai", "Matrix", "Highlander" etc.. and the Japanese samurai sword is often made out to be like a light sabre of some kind. Look. its just a sword made out of steel with physical properties. If it was made by a master - then it would probably be a darn good sword. But its still a sword.

[squippy]

Quote[/b] ] The other article that you referred to says:

Yes. So this omits mention of steel clamshell armour as worn by samurai. Thats rather significant IMO.


Quote[/b] ] The main thrust of thehaca is to bring about a sense of perspective into medieval studies.

Hmm, yes. As I said, it seems to have a very resentful, pro-European agenda in my eyes; they are fighting a battle that need not be fought. So Hollywood is silly, what else is new? But when they lay their allegations against military historians, thats a different matter.


Quote[/b] ] and the Japanese samurai sword is often made out to be like a light sabre of some kind.

Allegedly. But this group ALSO claims to have a 'true' rediscovery of European 'martial arts'. This is an Agenda with a heavy subtext. They claims all sorts of equivalences between Western and Eastern martial training which are essentially unsupportable from the sources they have (frex, Tallhofer - absolutely NO footwork in it), and they write of all contradictory opinion as 'propaganda' and the work of ignorant ivory-towered academics.

Basically, their work is IMO pretty amateurish and ill-informed. That said, I fully support their desire to rediscover a Western martial praxis through use of the actual tools of the day. Perhaps, in about 100 years, they will be as established and formalised as the Eastern martial arts are today.

[The Sword of Cao Cao]

Quote[/b] (Crimson Castle @ June 01 2004,04:48)]
Quote[/b] (The Sword of Cao Cao @ May 31 2004,18:35)]Guns got there. Boom. Japanese Napoleon. Boom. Japanese are manufacturing more guns than any European country in the world. All used by SAMURAI.
Really? Japan producing more rifles than the Europeans? Where did you quote the source from?

And pray tell what happened after the Tokugawa clan united Japan? Did Japan continue to modernize?
History channel. This was only in year 1600, that they had that record though. Yes, just one source, but it's also highly probable. They also, improved upon the design of the arquebus. I've heard this from many sources all over the place, but right now I cant remember any links.


Pray tell, did they need too? They had superior firepower, were building a very good navy, with the help of a British captain. They kept the Europeans out for a reason. They did not need to. Japan was a perfectly fine country without all the western stuff. Tey kept Europeans ou because they didnt need anymore Catholic fanaticism and meddling Jesuits. When they opened up to Commodore Perry, the samurai rebelled not out of modernist resistance, but out of extreme dislike for Westerners, which they had good reason for, and the way the Meiji administration was taking. They would have modernized along with everyone else, as the battles at Satsuma show.

[Crimson Castle]

The History Channel is not a good academic source - at best it offers context. Please quote from a good academic book.

If left to themselves - the Japanese would never have modernized. It only took the immediate threat of western imperialism for them to change. Did it even occur to them during the period of 1600 - 1800s, that there was something afoot outside Japan?

[Ironside]

Squippy when did the katana become so famous? If is wasn't used much while the Japs was using steel clamshell armour, isn't that a indication of its lack of power against heavy armour.
Or else you can state that the cav sabre from 1700 was a superweapon that cutted through armour with ease.

And here's one... Why doesn't STW have any good katana unit (exept kensai) in the game? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[The Sword of Cao Cao]

*Japanese

I'm a "Jap" and regard that term the same way a black man, would "nigger"

As for STW, they had heavy cavalry. Thats when katana would have been used most, and to sever armour.

[Ironside]

Citera[/b] (The Sword of Cao Cao @ Juni 04 2004,10:20)]*Japanese

I'm a "Jap" and regard that term the same way a black man, would "nigger"

As for STW, they had heavy cavalry. Thats when katana would have been used most, and to sever armour.
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-oops.gif

Didn't meant to insult anyone, Japs is simply shorter to write than Japanese.

[Ironside]

Link (http://www.shinkendo.com/kabuto.html)

Found this link on helmet cutting, seems like the Japanese helmets gave quite good protection despite the katanas armour piercing abilities.

So now we need to know how good Europeian armour was compared to Japanese helmets. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wall.gif

[Sjakihata]

Inferior. I say that based on the technological gap and the better steel in Japan.

About the Katans I believe the archers use katanas as well

[RollingWave]

Katana like most other medieval blades were mostly used as side arms or during more special situations (ambush, seige, all out brawls in general where formations are impossible due to vareity of possibiliies) Romans were probably one of the last major armies to really NOT base their main weapon in polearms..... (or bows... as in the case of the nomadic armies)

[Ironside]

Citera[/b] (Sjakihata @ Juni 08 2004,13:28)]Inferior. I say that based on the technological gap and the better steel in Japan.

About the Katans I believe the archers use katanas as well
I said good unit, samurai archers aren't that good in melee, much better than regular archers in MTW though.

And what technological gap are you talking about? I'm talking about Sengoku Jidai (sp?) (1550-ish) before gunpowder against full plate knights on foot (late 1400). I don't know any gap there.

And about the steel, might be right but that doesn't necessary means that the armour is lacking (too much at least).
And to remember, that helmet test shows that if your armour is that good in a battle, you'll be almost unkillable, considering the problem of getting such a excellent hit against a good opponent.

RollingWave is probably on the right track. But are a lance a polearm?

I suspect that the katana became such a glorified weapon during the isolation time when wearing a katana (and wakasiki (sp?)) showed that you were samurai. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-curtain.gif

[ROCKHAMMER]

Considering that the Samurai caste were originally an Elite unit of highly mobile mounted horse archers made up of Japanse Warrior houses, I don't think the Roman Legion would stand a chance. The Samurai would just ride around them and shoot them to death. The Samurai of this period did ,however, believe in single 1 vs 1 combat. This is what cause them such a hard time with the Mongols during their first invasion. The Mongols did not fight that way and the Samurai had a hard time adapting to such an unorthodox & dishonorable way of fighting.

Against the Roman Legion, a Samurai army may have a hard time at first in dealing with the massed ranks of troops but, they would adapt and destroy them. The Legion would not be able to adapt to the Samurais' tactics and as soon as there formation started to break up, they would be slaughterd ala Katana. Any Samurai unit I can think of (except for the Ashigaru) would be able to go toe to toe with the Romans as long as the units were of similar size. It all comes down to mobility and the romans didn't possess it on the same level as the Samurai... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/shogunshame.gif

[ah_dut]

The japanese do not appear to have the discipline of the romans though. The japanese katana is a great sword but no match for the almighty scutum and gladius combo especially in the general melee

[Sjakihata]

I don't know many legionnaires who would slit open their belly for their commander.

Ashigaru are NOT samurai, merely militia peasents.

Ironside, the gap im talking about is from 1500-1600 (SJ) to the roman period (let's say 300-0) that's a lot of time.

[Ironside]

Ahh, back to the original topic are you? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif


Citera[/b] ]Any Samurai unit I can think of (except for the Ashigaru) would be able to go toe to toe with the Romans as long as the units were of similar size

You have to remember that samurai is a very wide word, so the quality of the men was very different.

I think that's a interesting point about the Roman army, a legion was a legion and was about the same strength all the time, unless hastly raised. Or have I missed something?

[Sjakihata]

Naturally, in every army some men are better than others. Also if there are veterans they are supposed to be better, as they have expeirence.

However, samurai was originally, the elite of the warrior caste from 1200. They serverd a warlord (daimyo) hence samurai (one who serves). At the beginning only persons with long genealogy and excellent skills could become samurai, they were THE ELITE no one could out class them.
Later however, when the need for samurai rose because of the Onin wars and later the Sengoku Jidai more men became samurai because more troops were needed.
Even later, under Hideyoshi and his reforms everyone who carried a weapon was samurai, although of varying ranks.

So, we are speaking of samurai of sengoku jidai. That means they are not as elite as beginning, but they are certainly NOT ashigaru.

Everyone should note that the title of the question is "Roman Legions vs. Japanese Samurai" and not "Roman Legions vs. Japanese Army". It is explictly asked how a legion would fare vs samurai.

And samurai was the elite of japanese society. A legion was the backbone of the romans, an ordinary army. Not praetorians who roughly corresponds to samurai (in terms of eliteness).

[jkaney55]

Oh... In that respects... I think I'll start a thread:
The fully trained US Navy SEAL vs. the Ethiopian village militia man

[jkaney55]

I am still not clear, is this a one vs. one basis, or many versus many, because if that is the case then you must take into consideration the army as a whole. Otherwise it is pointless to compare specific warriors who dictate specific rolls for instance: who would win a fight between a B-52 bomber and an F-14 Tomcat? the answer is clear. Or howabout an f-14 versus Anti-Aircraft guns? That too is silly. How about an M1 Abrams and a Challenger versus an anti aircraft gun. And finally the Abrams and Challenger versus a B-52 bomber.

Yes. I realise these examples may have been redundant, but until an executive decision is made in what the exact competition is between the exact warriors equipped with exactly what, we can not make a real logical conclusion. With the vague information we have, we only know we are comparing a warrior from the 2nd century B.C. to one from 1550 A.D.

[Sjakihata]

this question is naturally only hypothetical and thus has NOTHING to do with reality.
You must use your mind abstractly to make a conclusion.

Again, the question must be on a large scale, as legion is said not legionnaire.

So, it's basically an army / legion against an army of samurai, that means if normally an ashigaru used a gun or spear it is now a samurai who uses it etc, only samurai vs legion, thats the question.

[ah_dut]

It's totally hypothetical, no one knows the answer it's just educated guessing

[Sjakihata]

I still maintain my claim, though, that because the japanese had guns they would win.

[jkaney55]

If you entail the entire leagion, why can't you
take into consideration the whole Samurai army?
It seems stupid that you have to take all mundane
conscripts of rome and pit them against only
the elite class of japan and multiply them to an inflated
number...its just not a fair comparison. If the plan is
to take two armies, then so be it, ashigaru cannot be
excluded in these terms, as they made up the bulk of
a samurai army. That would be like envisioning a 12th
century army from europe composed of thousands of
only the most skilled and best armoured warhorse
riding knights, it just did not happen. The samurai were
minority in thier armies, just as praetorian where few. Who would I root for in any putcome--> Samurai

Who I think would win:
Individual 1v1 --> a Samurai warrior over a legionarre (once again, this has hundreds of variables such as individual prowess)
Army v Army--> toss up, completely depends on the situation, is it raining? does the specific samurai army even choose firepower? Which side is the attacker? Has the defender had the chance to build up defences?
Over all War--> Real close, I think that the Romans may pull it off, however once again, there are tons of variables. I chose the romans because they have been exposed to hundreds of forms of fighting (includings forms similar to the samurai, though probably not as well), where the Japanese were exposed to mainly themselves (and the koreans and mongols, where they were hastily tossed from Korea on Shimazu's failed invasion, and were saved from the impeding mogol hoards by the great Kami Kazi).

[Sjakihata]

It wasnt me who started the thread, so dont blame me. Im merely pointing out the TRUE question and its wording, if you want a army vs army comparison then start a new thread.

[ah_dut]

I think the samurai may win the battle but the romans as always, win the war.

[jkaney55]

My apologies Sjakihata, I didn't mean to bark at you... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-confused.gif