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

[Vladimir]

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

[JeromeBaker]

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

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

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

[Husar]

a katana would more likely get stuck in a scrotum.

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

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

[Voigtkampf]

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

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

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

Oh, dear... You have a most impressive scrotum indeed.

[smooth_operator]

Oh, dear... You have a most impressive scrotum indeed.

Now this made me laugh.

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.

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

[Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout]

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

[Populus Romanus]

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

[smooth_operator]

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

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

[Vladimir]

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

I'll protect them! My shield is strong.