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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Refer to this picture for case number 2.
Attachment 1389

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Voigtkampf

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kagemusha

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

---

Hey Kagemusha,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for your answer Jerome Baker.~:)

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

Composition

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

Organisation

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

Command

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ng_vs._Samurai

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maikeru Bōkun Hanshu

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

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

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

---

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

That was very interesting Kagemusha, thanks for the insight.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nelson

The Japanese had no weapons advantage over the Romans.

---

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

Quote:

---

Katanas could not cut through a scutum. No way.

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeromeBaker

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

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

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

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

Alas, to the arguments at hand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nelson

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

a katana would more likely get stuck in a scrotum.

---

:inquisitive:

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Voigtkampf

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

---

Now this made me laugh. :laugh4:

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Populus Romanus

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Populus Romanus

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

---

I'll protect them! My shield is strong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeromeBaker

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

---

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

This is silly.

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

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

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

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

For arguments sake and for the thread

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nameless

This is silly.

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

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

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

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

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

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

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

Who would win, Super Space Oranges vs Mutated Apples?

Clearly you people are putting your minds to use.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Takeda Shogunate

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rothe

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Takeda Shogunate

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Takeda Shogunate

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by andrewt

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NightwindKing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Takeda Shogunate

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Takeda Shogunate

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

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

---

Hi Takeda!

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peasant Phill

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

---

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

Hm.

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by feelotraveller

Hm.

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

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NightwindKing

Hi Takeda!

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by feelotraveller

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peasant Phill

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Takeda Shogunate

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NightwindKing

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Takeda Shogunate

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

I disagree,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jepp21

I disagree,

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

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

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

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

---

Finally!Someone that shares my opinions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peasant Phill

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

---

Oh, samurai in Battle Realms double wield their swords :D

This is absurd.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

With regards, a student of war

Dexter

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dexter

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

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

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

---

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

LOL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OA

:bow: