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

[Kagemusha]

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.

Dont get me wrong.It is nothing personal towards you. Just your statement concerning the nature of Japanese warfare of the period is false one.There are no emotions attached into that.If it sounds like that i apologise.

[Akka]

The most absurd thing is that some of you really think that an army 13 centuries of evolution in equipment and tactics behind could win a more modern one.

The most absurd thing is that you hold this reasoning of "it's 13 centuries later, so there is 13 centuries of technological advances".
It's not because something happens centuries after something else, that technology is in any way necessarily better - technology doesn't happens everywhere at the same time, or we would not have had things like English riflemen fighting spear-wielding Zulus.
It's especially egregious considering it was already pointed out to you.

[Kagemusha]

The most absurd thing is that you hold this reasoning of "it's 13 centuries later, so there is 13 centuries of technological advances".
It's not because something happens centuries after something else, that technology is in any way necessarily better - technology doesn't happens everywhere at the same time, or we would not have had things like English riflemen fighting spear-wielding Zulus.
It's especially egregious considering it was already pointed out to you.

Maybe then you would like to explain me how wrought iron is superior to steel? or cavalry without stirrups compared to cavalry with stirrups?Japanese and zulus were not really comparable level of technological advance compared to Europeans when they first met or were they?Please show me one example in which ways Romans were more advanced to 16th century Japanese in military technology and then we can continue from there.

[Akka]

Maybe then you would like to explain me how wrought iron is superior to steel?

Maybe you would like to explain how you jump from 'happening' later does not mean the technology has improved linearily with iron is better than steel ?

I pointed that your reasoning is bogus. You can either back it up (hint : you can't, your reasoning was faulty) or correct it (this you can, by pointing the ACTUAL points where 16th century Japan and Rome had differing technologies, but in this case try to be objective and not just list some japanese advantages, blow them out of proportion, and forget every advantages the Romans could have had), but using logical fallacies like the one above isn't going to cut it.

Japanese and zulus were not really comparable level of technological advance compared to Europeans when they first met or were they?Please show me one example in which ways Romans were more advanced to 16th century Japanese in military technology and then we can continue from there.

Well, I could point that they were far superior builders, especially military builders - able to raise a fortified encampment from scratch in half an afternoon, and to make astounding siege fortifications on the spot with astounding engineering in incredibly short notice.
But anyway , Roman advantages never came from their technology, but from their organization. The technological advantages of 16th century Japan (save for gunpowder, but it's out of the picture for now) were rather marginal, and though it would give an edge on such or such point, I highly doubt it would deeply change the balance between the two forces.
Not only Romans were incredibly organized and disciplined, but they also had a lot of practice and adaptability. They fought LOTS of different neighbours, in the end came out on top, and had ample opportunity to fine-tune their methods and organization. Samurais, on the other hand, fought primarily between themselves, with just a bit of fighting in Korea (which they eventually evacuated) and with Mongols (which were defeated by weather rather than arms). Not to say they were bad, but one side clearly had more varied and tried-and-true experience than the other.

[Kagemusha]

Maybe you would like to explain how you jump from 'happening' later does not mean the technology has improved linearily with iron is better than steel ?

I pointed that your reasoning is bogus. You can either back it up (hint : you can't, your reasoning was faulty) or correct it (this you can, by pointing the ACTUAL points where 16th century Japan and Rome had differing technologies, but in this case try to be objective and not just list some japanese advantages, blow them out of proportion, and forget every advantages the Romans could have had), but using logical fallacies like the one above isn't going to cut it.

Well, I could point that they were far superior builders, especially military builders - able to raise a fortified encampment from scratch in half an afternoon, and to make astounding siege fortifications on the spot with astounding engineering in incredibly short notice.
But anyway , Roman advantages never came from their technology, but from their organization. The technological advantages of 16th century Japan (save for gunpowder, but it's out of the picture for now) were rather marginal, and though it would give an edge on such or such point, I highly doubt it would deeply change the balance between the two forces.
Not only Romans were incredibly organized and disciplined, but they also had a lot of practice and adaptability. They fought LOTS of different neighbours, in the end came out on top, and had ample opportunity to fine-tune their methods and organization. Samurais, on the other hand, fought primarily between themselves, with just a bit of fighting in Korea (which they eventually evacuated) and with Mongols (which were defeated by weather rather than arms). Not to say they were bad, but one side clearly had more varied and tried-and-true experience than the other.

You are nitpicking. I told you that your zulu comparison was invalid and your excuse does not work with developed societys.
I always thought that Western Roman Empire grumbled 476 and Eastern Roman or the shadow which was left of it 1453. This is news to me that Roman empire survived and instead topped all their foes.

About military buildings. Do you know which stone base was one of the remaining structures in Hiroshima after the A-bomb was dropped there?Maybe you would then like to enlighten the rest of us, how Japanese camped during military campaigns, how they handled their logistics.How big armies they could field? Which kind of command structure they had? I can tell you about the Romans as i have been very interested of them for a quite long time. To me your post seems like that you know the Roman side of things, but not much about what you are actually arguing against?

[Madae]

Dont get me wrong.It is nothing personal towards you. Just your statement concerning the nature of Japanese warfare of the period is false one.There are no emotions attached into that.If it sounds like that i apologise.

You were putting words in my mouth by saying what I meant by "man to man" was "some dude calls out some dude and they have some typical Hollywood style battle because that's the way ninjas and samurais did it". And I know you did that because you hate being wrong and in an argument with people that don't agree with you (which you started). I'm sorry I insulted your love of the Japanese culture and your need to be right every time your infallible opinion gets challenged, but everything you said is theory riddled with mixed amounts of fact and fallacies, topped with a nice portion of fanboy and a preference of the Japanese over the Romans. It's really that simple, and this argument is not worth my time.

And sorry Marshall, I refuse to talk to you. I can feel my brain cells dying when I read anything you say.

For the record; what I meant by "man-to-man" was; armies clash, one guy picks out a target, kills or is killed, and then moves on to the next - rinse and repeat (and much like the Medieval era). Roman fighting was not about letting one man run off on his own and choose his targets. Get rid of everything you know about weapons and armor and just stick with this idea (it's true; Roman weapons and armor were very lackluster and cheap, mass produced exactly the same for every soldier, but they did not rely on it entirely like a Japanese warrior would). It was about cohesion, and bringing the unit to the fight, where one man defends the next and opportunities against the enemy are taken advantage of as a whole (shield out, stab, shield in), as well as; rotating lines to combat the fatigue of the man in front, and defensive formations (Testudo) for various occasions. About the only thing I can see that the Japanese have that historically caused problems for the Romans is horse archery (stirrups would undoubtedly aid in that), but everything else they have is easily comparable to the dozens of different peoples the Romans conquered.

[Akka]

You are nitpicking.

You got nerve to say this considering you have so far completely avoided every main ideas exposed, to just refocus on some little details, purposingly ignoring their meaning and then twisting them to make bad strawman. Your entire answers are built upon it, and you have the audacity to actually accuse OTHERS to do it ?

Seems you're just attempting to "win" and not really to have a discussion. That's just pointless and childish, so I don't see any reason to waste more time with you.

[Kagemusha]

DOUBLE POST.

[Kagemusha]

You were putting words in my mouth by saying what I meant by "man to man" was "some dude calls out some dude and they have some typical Hollywood style battle because that's the way ninjas and samurais did it". And I know you did that because you hate being wrong and in an argument with people that don't agree with you (which you started). I'm sorry I insulted your love of the Japanese culture and your need to be right every time your infallible opinion gets challenged, but everything you said is theory riddled with mixed amounts of fact and fallacies, topped with a nice portion of fanboy and a preference of the Japanese over the Romans. It's really that simple, and this argument is not worth my time.

No need for personal attacks. Please do elaborate where i am wrong? What have i said that is not true? And what i that a talk about hollywood combat? There was no jab towards you. You are seeing things that arent.Before the Mongol Invasions the Japanese warfare was somewhat ritualistic, but with the lessons learned from it.Their warfare developed. Lesson learned that everybody are not fighting with your rules. Tell me what theories i have put to the table.All i have been talking in this thread is about how Japanese waged war, please show me where i have said something that is not supported by historians. I have been reading history as hobby for more then 15 years. I have nothing against Romans and like i said before in this thread.If we would pit a contemporary European army of similar size.I would bet my money on the Europeans.

The same goes to Akka. Point me out the hypothesis in what i have said? Also to you.I am not attacking you but your ideas. Defend them with facts and we can have a real conversation.

[Madae]

Are you really trying to act like a victim? But seriously, you care about this more than I do, which is funny considering it can't be proven either way and is, again, only conjecture - you really do want to win an argument that can't be won. It's not worth the effort to discuss/argue it with you. Your "15 years of history reading as a hobby" really doesn't mean jack in the greater scheme of things, since you know nothing about me or Akka. The mere fact that you brought it up as if it gives you more credibility does more to hurt your argument than help it.

[econ21]

This thread started out interesting - I learnt a lot.

But now the discussion is getting intemperate and generating more heat than light. Time for the topic to take a nap.

Anyone wishing to continue the debate can open a thread in the Monastery, which is a more appropriate forum.

But please try to be charitable and friendly in debate.