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

[Madae]

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

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

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

We're not talking about the Chinese.

I think,somewhat you are underestimating the Japanese,they did not lack in having good Generals,because I think,lets say Japanese invasion of Korea.Toyotomi Hideyoshi is extremly lucky that the samurai he has in his army have been figthing for almost a decade.What does that provide him? Veterans. Hardenerd infantry.They wouldn't however ''fall'' to death. The Japanese would have rather died on the battlefield than give their life away.Look on the internet if you're not sure.

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

The Meiji Restoration wiped out the Samurai.

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

Amercia and other european nations did bomb japanese cities,when I mean bomb they only fired a few shots on the cities,but it bought a massive change in Japan.I think they should have used the samurai as a unit in their armies,if you had bulletproof samurai,that would do,samurai fusliers? Using them would have been a great idea,but no one wanted them back in.

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

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

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

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

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

Opinion. Thanks for that.

You didn't have monks trying to convert people or you didn't have relegious wars in that time,for Japan ,really.It's like it was Japan itself was a big battlefield,and it has fought and fought for centuries(Quite good for the Japanese,as they inherited their ancestors genes and DNA)

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

Why,a mere peasent became one of Japan's most powerful general,And that was toyotomi Hideyoshi,you would never see that in feudalism Europe.

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

And in belief to that Europeans deveploed Marital arts is a lie. There was no such thing as that,and it never existed.Look at Rome and Persia,or Grecce or Carthage,where was the maritial arts then?I want see some proof that they did invent maritial arts. But the Japanese army did grow powerful,as shown in the last samurai.

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

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

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