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

The other thread was closed by the moderator.So in this case,I've started it all over again.

I say that the Japanese could win a battle agasint Rome. There is no way that will obstrcut them too.

Marshall, when the other thread was closed, econ stated the following:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by econ21

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:

---

So I'm moving this to the Monastery.

Also, if you are going to start a thread, it helps to add some points to support your position. Simply saying "I think the Japanese would win", does nothing to encourage discussion.

Ah. It's like 1999 all over again!

The Romans lost plenty of battles, what matters is that they tended to win wars.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gregoshi

Marshall, when the other thread was closed, econ stated the following:


So I'm moving this to the Monastery.

Also, if you are going to start a thread, it helps to add some points to support your position. Simply saying "I think the Japanese would win", does nothing to encourage discussion.

---

I was going to add info in it.Don't judge me like that.

you can't really compare Japanese equipments with Roman ones, I doubt Roman legions use hardened steel armour and weaponary.

but allright, for the sake of comparison, let us assume they have the similar grade metals all over this... and compare roman chain mail give the same protection with steel plates

ok, let's take a look for fight between Legions vs Samurai:

the points:
- samurai will definitely win in individual combat
- legionary can win in formation-to-formation combat
- legionary use big shields, they'll fare better when long time missile exchanges involved, while their armour is good to evading missiles for a while, history proves that japanese troops, rarely use shields, will fall victim to massed missile combat, but again
- we should also note that Japanese are better archers than Romans, of course, when slingshots are used, it could give blunt impact on samurai armour, making missile capability sightly even.
- but again, even with superrior accuracy training, Japanese yumi bows are actually used for shorter range than slings
- roman cavalry aren't that good compared to steepe and makedonian cavalry, but japanese cavalry can't be said good, it should be even.
- and the last we should look on morale side, Samurai, in theory, prefers death to dishonour, so they'll give harder fights than rome.

I'll said this:
- if the Romans can hold formations, and stand on prolonged battle, it will be close victory for Romans
- but if the Japanese fight on not so open battlefield, or worse, fight in cities, they'll win, close win...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cute Wolf

I doubt Roman legions use hardened steel armour and weaponary.

---

I'll save you the suspense; they don't. Every Legionnaire was equipped the same, with variances due to position and rank. Armor consisted of chain or scale mail, sometimes as little as leather and less depending on the unit, and then a shield. Weapons were mostly the gladius (early history) and a few pila, but also short spears (later in history) and daggers. The Romans could probably be considered to be one of the earliest examples (if not the first) of mass-producing equipment to specifications. Typically, their equipment was not much better than the people they fought against, and they were even known to adopt particularly useful items from those they fought (such as the Gladius).

But again, you people are still getting hung up on the equipment. It really does-not-matter if they were using iron or steel - an iron gladius or tipped spear will pierce someone just as easily as a steel katana would severe an arm or leg. The way the Romans were designed to fight gave them a slight advantage over just about anything (not including projectiles) because they were protected from reprisal (through a wall of shields), but also capable of delivering a swift puncture at precise opportunities. The quality of the weapon, the ability of the swordsman; these things simply don't matter to the Romans, because they did not fight like the Japanese would try to do; man to man, attack-parry-attack-parry-block-attack-dodge-etcetcetcetc. They just stayed in formation and avoided single combat.

I'm not saying the Japense wouldn't be capable of winning though, if they were only willing to adopt a different strategy (or could break the Roman line), but they wouldn't, because they're hung up on the particulars of their own culture - they did not like foreign ideas, and they did not like dishonoring themselves by fighting in a way that they deemed dishonorable... which is probably exactly what they would have thought of the Romans. I always thought that was hilarious of the Japanese, and it reminds me of a child; "waaaah, they ain't playing the game right!"... it's war, dummy - you fight to win. There is no special code or handbook to proper fighting, unless it, of course, involves superior strategy and tactics. You do everything you can to kill the man trying to kill you, and it really doesn't matter how you do it as long as the result is the death or surrender of your enemy. This is absolutely why the Japanese failed so often against foreign powers early in their history - they were hung up on something that really doesn't make any sense outside of their world. Fierce fighters, sure - smart fighters, absolutely not. So, sorry guys, but a lucky typhoon isn't going to save you in our hypothetical battles here, which is the only reason the Japanese aren't speaking Chinese/Mongolian right now.

And please don't mistake this as hate-mongering of the Japanese. It is an opinion. I like their culture as much as I like the Romans.

Quote:

---

The Romans lost plenty of battles, what matters is that they tended to win wars.

---

Very true. The Legion lost plenty of battles, but they always won the wars.

Made,your post will be ignored. Since you said the same thing to me,I will not answer you.

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

You are banned from this thread,you will not read or write om this thread.That should be enough for you.Your comment deeply hurted me.

lol, okay.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cute Wolf

you can't really compare Japanese equipments with Roman ones, I doubt Roman legions use hardened steel armour and weaponary.

but allright, for the sake of comparison, let us assume they have the similar grade metals all over this... and compare roman chain mail give the same protection with steel plates

ok, let's take a look for fight between Legions vs Samurai:

the points:
- samurai will definitely win in individual combat
- legionary can win in formation-to-formation combat
- legionary use big shields, they'll fare better when long time missile exchanges involved, while their armour is good to evading missiles for a while, history proves that japanese troops, rarely use shields, will fall victim to massed missile combat, but again
- we should also note that Japanese are better archers than Romans, of course, when slingshots are used, it could give blunt impact on samurai armour, making missile capability sightly even.
- but again, even with superrior accuracy training, Japanese yumi bows are actually used for shorter range than slings
- roman cavalry aren't that good compared to steepe and makedonian cavalry, but japanese cavalry can't be said good, it should be even.
- and the last we should look on morale side, Samurai, in theory, prefers death to dishonour, so they'll give harder fights than rome.

I'll said this:
- if the Romans can hold formations, and stand on prolonged battle, it will be close victory for Romans
- but if the Japanese fight on not so open battlefield, or worse, fight in cities, they'll win, close win...

---

Romans lack Good Generals. The Japanese can win on a battlefield. Please do not underestimate them. I know of some places where the Japanese fought,and it was good ol' plain battlefield. True,the Japanese would fall just from not carrying shields, But the formation however is something the Japanese could figure outhemselves.After all,they've had extremly good generals.The Morale side is an excellent point.I don't think the Japanese fully untizeld or didn't reliaise the advantage of using Cavarly,it was probaly the Takeda Clan that could field masses of cavarly that day.Legions wont be able to defeat the Japanese,if they are in formation.For example,they could send archers,cavarly,and samurai to bang them out of their formation,The Japanese will look for ways in how to dissolve the roman formation

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

As I have followed this debate, only two arguments I have seen have been altogether without foundation.

Superior Japanese generalship is untrue. As with all armies in all time periods, there were great commanders and miserable ones. Most were somewhere in between. Overlooking the obvious Roman giants is stupifying.

Metalurgy would not be a factor in any combat between these forces. How exactly could it be? The gladius and the katana were BOTH just swords albeit requiring radically different techniques to employ. I can't understand why anyone would believe that the grade of steel would make one bit of difference as it plunges into one's body. And no, a gladius would not shatter if stuck by a katana any more than a scutum would. :rolleyes:

The Romans did not use pure iron weapons because they could not make them as such even had they so desired. Carbon inadvertantly gets into the iron during the smithing process resulting in a grade of steel quite good enough to serve as a potent sword for any age at all. Steel quality is important for firearms and especially artillery. It can also make a weapon lighter and hence handier. But if battering in armor is the goal lighter isn't so good. Mass is the answer then.

And as a final note, I am unwilling to concede that a legionary could seldom best a samurai in single combat. The defeat of Gaius would be far from certain. Samurai were not gods. Roman troops could defeat Gauls and Germans in single combat despite formation fighting being the norm. Single combat was not unknown to them. They even had awards for it.

A battle between Romans and samurai would be a huge melee. And anything can happen in a fight like that where things get so wild and crazy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout

Nope. The Romans ,despite being a professional force,did lack Generals. That was what Rome lacked in its history,Generals.

---

I guess Octavian/Augustus, Marcus Aurelius, Julius Caesar, Mark Antony, and Pompey Magnus don't qualify. I mean... do I really have to go on?

Quote:

---

The Chinese were far more advanced than the romans and they could have easily conqeured Rome

---

We're not talking about the Chinese.

Quote:

---

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.

---

Many Romans made a career out of the Legion, because it was well paid and looting bonuses were fairly common. To say the Romans didn't have as experienced soldiers as the Japanese is just silly. There was more incentive for a Roman to join the legion than there would be for a japanese peasent to join an army - in the latter case, they were probably forced to, with little or no chance of rising through the ranks because of their status as "lowborn". Toyotomi Hideyoshi is an exception to the rule, considering he was a peasent.

Quote:

---

The Meiji Restoration wiped out the Samurai.

---

Yeah, because they were too dumb, stubborn and headstrong to move forward with the rest of their country, which is the perfect example of how they would be too attached to their own ideologies to actually want to adopt a different strategy against a dangerous foe.

Quote:

---

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.

---

I challenge you to find any historical mention of something called a "Bulletproof Samurai". Please, show me. Because it couldn't possibly have been a fabrication for a videogame... a lot like elephants with cannons on their backs.

Quote:

---

And Japan has not had one civil war,it has had civil war for centurys.Centuries.

---

Did you just contradict yourself in one sentence? You do realise that the Boshin war during the Meiji Restoration was... a civil war? And Sengoku Jidai was... *gasp* a civil war?

... unless you were actually trying to be clever with this. In which case, I hate to be the grammar-nazi, but....

Quote:

---

Japanese fudelism society was a thousand times way better than European feudalism.

---

Opinion. Thanks for that.

Quote:

---

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)

---

I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

Quote:

---

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.

---

We're not talking about the feudal age - we're talking about the Romans. Yes, Toyotomi was a peasent that became a powerful man, but only because he earned the favor of Oda Nobunaga, and it still meant that, legally, Hideyoshi could never become Shogun (and he didn't). A mere citizen in the Roman Legion could rise through the ranks to become practically anything he wanted in Roman society, provided he had the ambition to.

Quote:

---

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.

---

Ok, so when did anyone say anything about Europeans developing Martial Arts? And I don't think that last sentence belongs in this, uh, paragraph.

Quote:

---

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

---

You have not given one example of why you think Japanese tactics are better - not one. You're just saying it is. That's really not how you win arguments.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Madae

I guess Octavian/Augustus, Marcus Aurelius, Julius Caesar, Mark Antony, and Pompey Magnus don't qualify. I mean... do I really have to go on?



We're not talking about the Chinese.



Many Romans made a career out of the Legion, because it was well paid and looting bonuses were fairly common. To say the Romans didn't have as experienced soldiers as the Japanese is just silly. There was more incentive for a Roman to join the legion than there would be for a japanese peasent to join an army - in the latter case, they were probably forced to, with little or no chance of rising through the ranks because of their status as "lowborn". Toyotomi Hideyoshi is an exception to the rule, considering he was a peasent.



Yeah, because they were too dumb, stubborn and headstrong to move forward with the rest of their country, which is the perfect example of how they would be too attached to their own ideologies to actually want to adopt a different strategy against a dangerous foe.



I challenge you to find any historical mention of something called a "Bulletproof Samurai". Please, show me. Because it couldn't possibly have been a fabrication for a videogame... a lot like elephants with cannons on their backs.



Did you just contradict yourself in one sentence? You do realise that the Boshin war during the Meiji Restoration was... a civil war? And Sengoku Jidai was... *gasp* a civil war?

... unless you were actually trying to be clever with this. In which case, I hate to be the grammar-nazi, but....



Opinion. Thanks for that.



I have no idea what you're trying to say here.



We're not talking about the feudal age - we're talking about the Romans. Yes, Toyotomi was a peasent that became a powerful man, but only because he earned the favor of Oda Nobunaga, and it still meant that, legally, Hideyoshi could never become Shogun (and he didn't). A mere citizen in the Roman Legion could rise through the ranks to become practically anything he wanted in Roman society, provided he had the ambition to.



Ok, so when did anyone say anything about Europeans developing Martial Arts? And I don't think that last sentence belongs in this, uh, paragraph.



You have not given one example of why you think Japanese tactics are better - not one. You're just saying it is. That's really not how you win arguments.

---

As I have said Made.You are banned from commenting on this thread.You have no right whatsoever to say anything,nor say your beliefs. After all you said: :And sorry Marshall, I refuse to talk to you. I can feel my brain cells dying when I read anything you say.

So get out.

Uh... No offense, but are you seriously, like, 12? or something. If I understood where you're coming from, like maybe if you were just "simple", it would help me out a great deal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Madae

Uh... No offense, but are you seriously, like, 12? or something. If I understood where you're coming from, like maybe if you were just "simple", it would help me out a great deal.

---

You have insulted me.You are not allowed to comment.Simple.And you wrote that comment.Not me.

The Japanese did not lack in having good Generals. Roman and Japanese society are different compared to warfare.You see ,people are looking it from one point of view,not two.They all want Rome to win,when it can be defeated already. Tutenburg forrest anyone?

They were not that stubborn. The Meji Emperor should have gotten them into his favour and used them.If I had been him,I would have made sure I used the samurai fully,gaining them in my favour.

Because you were being provocative in your post, which Gregoshi pointed out. I even made the stipulation that I would debate with you and anyone else if you actually brought something up that wasn't intending to inflame the argument, but all you did was repost the exact same thing you said, which you did again here. So, to help further you along the path of acceptable intelligent debate, I commented on it. Are you going to continue being a child because I don't agree with you?

I guess the answer is yes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Madae

Because you were being provocative in your post, which Gregoshi pointed out. I even made the stipulation that I would debate with you and anyone else if you actually brought something up that wasn't intending to inflame the argument, but all you did was repost the exact same thing you said, which you did again here. So, to help further you along the path acceptable intelligent debate, I commented on it. Are you going to continue being a child because I don't agree with you?

---

There is nothing here about agreeing with you. You are not seeing it from a Japanese point of view.You said those words to me,plus you have now insulted me by calling me a child.When I am not.I have reacted civily towards you,yet you are spoling this thread.I reditied my post and what did you say: And sorry Marshall, I refuse to talk to you. I can feel my brain cells dying when I read anything you say.

There is no intelligent debate.You are simply stating that you want the Romans to win,and that everyone should agree with you because the Japanese could never have a proper army and could lose agasint Rome.First,consider with a medieval army,that would be the titan vs titan match.Rome is ancient. Their armies could have been defeated by the Chinese had they allied with the Japanese..You did not say you would debate with me.Where is the proof?

Ok, Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout.

Good,now we can forget this little argument and continue onwards.Made will not comment on this thread.

To repeat my mantra : when it comes to "who would win ?", I believe much more in professionnal, organized, efficient and disciplined army than in romantic, personnal and glorious aspect. "Gods of war" Spartans were crushed by "professionnal" Thebans, who were themselves crushed by "even more professionnal and organized" Macedonians. In fact, history has a very strong correlation about how professionnal armies win against other kind of armies, even if they are made of supposedly "bred for war" fighters.
"Discipline > personnal talent" when it comes to the battlefield.

I may concede that the typical samurai would win more often than not against the typical roman legionnary (though I'm pretty sure he would have a very nasty surprise when it comes to fighting someone skilled with a shield), but it's because the training and martial arts of the samurai was oriented that way, while the typical legionnary had his training geared more about being a "soldier" than a "warrior" (that is, practice with moving in formation, keeping ranks, obeying orders, fighting as a team, etc.). And this is THIS training which is by far the most efficient in war.

Also, I'm convinced that the overall organization of the Romans was FAR superior to the overall organization of the japanese armies, and allowed for much better and more sturdy strategical planning and resilience.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Akka

To repeat my mantra : when it comes to "who would win ?", I believe much more in professionnal, organized, efficient and disciplined army than in romantic, personnal and glorious aspect. "Gods of war" Spartans were crushed by "professionnal" Thebans, who were themselves crushed by "even more professionnal and organized" Macedonians. In fact, history has a very strong correlation about how professionnal armies win against other kind of armies, even if they are made of supposedly "bred for war" fighters.
"Discipline > personnal talent" when it comes to the battlefield.

I may concede that the typical samurai would win more often than not against the typical roman legionnary (though I'm pretty sure he would have a very nasty surprise when it comes to fighting someone skilled with a shield), but it's because the training and martial arts of the samurai was oriented that way, while the typical legionnary had his training geared more about being a "soldier" than a "warrior" (that is, practice with moving in formation, keeping ranks, obeying orders, fighting as a team, etc.). And this is THIS training which is by far the most efficient in war.

Also, I'm convinced that the overall organization of the Romans was FAR superior to the overall organization of the japanese armies, and allowed for much better and more sturdy strategical planning and resilience.

---

You are forgetting one thing. It depended on the Damiyo himself. It would be his army.Plus if bow samurai were ordered to fire,they would fire,if samurai were ordered to attack,they would attack,if ashaguri were orderded to attack,they would attack,.

The Maecdioans beat the Greeks because they made their poles much longer as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout

You did not say you would debate with me.Where is the proof?

---

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...post2053381872

Quote:

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Madae

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...post2053381872

---

I have told you before.You are the one acting childish.Instead of ignoring this thread,you seem to be a pain in the neck.And of course I will feel bitter about this! Can't I show some emotion?If I said the same thing to you,how would you feel? Bitter. There is no point in talking with you,you would never understand.Now please leave. Good day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout

Now please leave. Good day.

---

Then stop editing your previous posts and asking questions you apparently don't want the answer to.

Ok,you stop commenting.I ignore,Simple.

As again. The Japanese would win a battle.And they did not have bad generals. They were extremly excellent generals.

This does not seem very constructive anymore, if it ever was to begin with. So I'll close this thread and hopefully things will cool down by itself or I'll be forced to bring out the hose...