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

[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.

[Kagemusha]

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.

[andrewt]

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.

[Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout]

[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

[Nelson]

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...

[Peasant Phill]

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.

[Arjos]

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

[faker01]

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)

[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.

[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! :-)

[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