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

[Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout]

[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?
?

[Peasant Phill]

...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.

[NightwindKing]

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! :-)

[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.

[NightwindKing]

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.

[Peasant Phill]

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?

[feelotraveller]

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!

[smooth_operator]

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

[Dexter]

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.

[NightwindKing]

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.

[Gregoshi]

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.

[Risasi]

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.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

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.

[Dexter]

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.

Yes it is contradictory as many thing s in life, perhaps I should have written if you are referring solely to military tactics. It seems I must apologize again, for not being able to properly express myself.

All I said was, do the research yourself and don't take as a fact someone interpretation of some events, things and so on as the word of God: "That is the truth and the only truth".
Westerners do tend to judge things prematurely, and misinterpret things quite often. Something that is a common day event for you can be considered offensive, rude by the other. But again, do the research yourself, and don't take my word on it.


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.

Armor: can a lorica lorica hamata stop a bullet ? Here's a little pointer for those of you whom don't have the time to investigate, the Japanese armor was not standardized as the roman one, in fact it was made for that person, often being also a symbol of wealth and social status. Just by looking at his armor you know it was an important person you are facing, + added bonus: it stops bullets.

The Japanese did not hide there "leaders", they wanted him to stand out, boosting the morale of the men, and yes to even taunt the enemy. You can certainly read more on a subject, and of course with more carefully chosen words then what I have written.

The weapons: ashigaru weapons where mostly standardized, but do remember that the Japanese smiths where not mass producing weak quality weapons, a man was proud of his work, and he did not want a low quality product to be associated with him. Please read more about how they folded, worked the metal.

The roman army was all about standardization, all should have the same equipment, it was not the individual men that mattered but the unit.

As stated by others the time difference is also an important issue. Things change, that witch does not change is facing extinction - again this may have no meaning for some of you, the fault is mine not yours -.

Perhaps one other factor might be the cultural difference, and despite of some statement the samurai would rather die then retreat, I must "enlighten" you, that bushido clearly states to throw away ones life without meaning is a dishonorable, shameful act. If by retreating you do more good, then by all means retreat. Otherwise the sengoku period would have lasted one day.
Rigidly interpreting the code of the samurai, the losers should have all cut there bellies, and be done with it. I'm certain that did not happen.
Before I go on, the morale code, conduct, demeanor etc - bushido - was not written in stone, it was expected of a man - individual - to fallow the "way of the warrior". For me that has a certain meaning, I can't possibly know what it mean for you, now can I ?

"if you know and study warfare, you know the answer and if you don't, then I'm not going to tell you" - yes, true, but not because I think I'm better then you, I think I'm not wise enough to tell you, as I have written I still have much to learn. Instead I encourage you to find your own answer and not rely on someone else's, as the "way" of discovery is a reward in itself - yet again I do realize this may not be true for all whom embark on this "way" -.

One last thing before I say farewell, do remember that Rome Total War and Shogun 2 are just someone interpretation of that era, not wanting to attack them of course, they made a game they intended to make money with. Do I need to go on ?

If anyone got "hurt" by my ill chosen words, I do apologize, it was not my intent, and feel free to ignore all I have written, as they are the words of someone less important then you.

Regards
Dex

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