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

[Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout]

Wow, there are some seriously thin-skinned people here. It was an opinion, and a good one at that with plenty of solid points. Why are you getting so defensive and acting like I don't respect the Japanese because I made a simple choice? How about this; you guys invent a time machine, go back in time, and find out what would really happen instead of attacking my idea and claiming yours is right over mine. News flash; this is all conjecture. Yours is. Mine is. Everything is. Get over it, please?

And for the record, I really don't care if you want to argue my points, or if you think I'm wrong and want to tell me, but you could at least do it without sounding so bitter about it. It just makes you look childish.

Nope. The Romans ,despite being a professional force,did lack Generals. That was what Rome lacked in its history,Generals.The success of the Roman army depended on having a good general to lead them.While the Japanese put their damyio in the front,ready to boost morale. The Chinese were far more advanced than the romans and they could have easily conqeured Rome,they had a professional army as well,But it could have been a major series events of a battle. I think,somewhat you are underestimating the Japanese,they did not lack in having good Generals,because I think,lets say Japanese invasion of Korea.Toyotomi Hideyoshi is extremly lucky that the samurai he has in his army have been figthing for almost a decade.What does that provide him? Veterans. Hardenerd infantry.They wouldn't however ''fall'' to death. The Japanese would have rather died on the battlefield than give their life away.Look on the internet if you're not sure.

Just look at what happened during the Meiji Restoration; while the rest of the world was moving into the modern era, the Japanese up until that point were forcefully isolating themselves. It only changed when they were forced by the ruling classes to do away with the old ideas (which caused a civil war)

The Meiji Restoration wiped out the Samurai. They were forced into change towards what the modern world was demanding them too.Amercia and other european nations did bomb japanese cities,when I mean bomb they only fired a few shots on the cities,but it bought a massive change in Japan.I think they should have used the samurai as a unit in their armies,if you had bulletproof samurai,that would do,samurai fusliers? Using them would have been a great idea,but no one wanted them back in. And that forced them to change.Otherwise they could have found a good use for the samurai.And Japan has not had one civil war,it has had civil war for centurys.Centuries. Japanese fudelism society was a thousand times way better than European feudalism.You didn't have monks trying to convert people or you didn't have relegious wars in that time,for Japan ,really.It's like it was Japan itself was a big battlefield,and it has fought and fought for centuries(Quite good for the Japanese,as they inherited their ancestors genes and DNA) Why,a mere peasent became one of Japan's most powerful general,And that was toyotomi Hideyoshi,you would never see that in feudalism Europe.And in belief to that Europeans deveploed Marital arts is a lie. There was no such thing as that,and it never existed.Look at Rome and Persia,or Grecce or Carthage,where was the maritial arts then?I want see some proof that they did invent maritial arts. But the Japanese army did grow powerful,as shown in the last samurai.

Japanese tactics were better.It all depended on the Damiyo's organiztion,I don't think the Japanese were that foolhardy to be as you say they are. if it were one to one,that would be when direct in the battlefield.It very much as I am saying,depended on him.The Damyio.