+- RomanArmyTalk (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat)
+-- Forum: Recreational Arena (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Forum: Off-Topic (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=18)
+--- Thread: Rome vs Japan (/showthread.php?tid=6276)
Re: Rome vs Japan - NightHunter24 - 08-06-2006
Human nature is what it is....many of us flee others fight to the bitter end...every society (or armies) has elments of both. We may all be a part of a unit or a whole, but ultimately each any everyone of us is an individual. To say that Samurai were braver or nobler or Romans more fierce or tenacious is really a mute point. All we can do is compare and research and maybe in the end we'll come out a tad wiser as a result.
Now, don't get me wrong, each had their advantages and deficiencies. Like I said in a previous post I'd see the perfect soldier as the soldier with the characteristics of Roman and Samurai within them.
Re: Rome vs Japan - MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS - 08-06-2006
And! to stay in the regions of true honour........
with a sword! not a gun!
M.VIB.M.
Re: Rome vs Japan - petrinus - 08-06-2006
Quote:PETRININUS:39fh668t Wrote:am i to presume a roman never soiled his tunic and took of trembling, im sure they did, given probability and human nature, not saying the repercussions werent as sever, the stonings, whipings, all that but the last thing you wanted to be was a dishonored samuraiWhat makes you think a Roman legionary didn't want to feel dishonour just as much as a samurai? Why do you think the punishments were so severe?
Of course they ran and retreated, but just as much as the losing side in any battle.
Are you telling me that an average Roman legionary (career soldier) was as likely to run and soil himself as a Japanese peasant conscript?
as a PEASANT? no certainly not but i believe SAMURAI were referenced as the fleeing party? then i say yes equal odds AT THE VERY LEAST
Re: Rome vs Japan - Tarbicus - 08-06-2006
Exactly how many samurai could be fielded at a time in battle? Was the entire Japanese fighting force made up of samurai?
Re: Rome vs Japan - petrinus - 08-06-2006
ah yes, i believe we would be better of as men as a world, if we returned with honor to the sword....dark days in this age of man, darker days ahead
the stavatti tsi-1, ushering in laser weaponry.....now if i can just get that in a saber format, lol, we might see a new age *cue music from a new hope* lol
Sekigahara etcetera. - MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS - 08-06-2006
One of the most important battles in the history of Japan it marked the end of the power struggle that began with the death of the Warlord Toyotomi Hideyoshi who has risen far from his peasant beginning but because of them could not claim the title of Shogun. His fleet had sailed to conquer China in 1592 landing in Korea with 130,000 Samurai, but the campaign soon became bogged down. Negotiations with the Chinese failed and finally in 1598 Hideyoshi died leaving two main rivals for power, Ishida Mitsunari and Tokugawa Ieyasu. Their struggle was to be finally decided in a small mountain valley in central Japan. The politics leading up to the battle can be illustrated with a few name changes by the plot of the novel 'Shogun' which has a loose historical basis. Fog lifted from the battlefield at 8am on 21st October 1600, with each commander having about 60,000 men. Tokugawa matchlock gunners (Teppo-tai) caused great damage as the battle continued, the enemy gunners also returned fire filling the valley with smoke and the screams of the dying. By 10am despite their efforts the Tokugawa forces were slowly being driven back, Mitsunari now signalled Kobayakawa Hideaki with his 15,000 fresh troops to attack but nothing happened, the Mori clan had abandoned him. Hideaki forces did not attack their former allies either but sat on the side lines waiting until Ieyasu forced his hand by directing some musket fire on the Mori clan troops. Finally Kobayakawa attacks bringing with him four other generals who decide to change sides and the turncoats fall upon Ishida's rear deciding the battle. By the end of the battle 40,000 had died and Ieyasu was master of Japan, 3 years later to become Shogun.
http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/ba ... ahara.html
mind you, earlier engagements between families and leagues of samurai families also used MASSIVE armies of 100.000 plus.
and yes: bushido is a different code of honour than the Roman code of honour. but indeed, armies sometimes fled the battlefield, just like Roman legions did.
M.VIB.M.
Re: Rome vs Japan - Jeroen Pelgrom - 08-07-2006
Quote:His fleet had sailed to conquer China in 1592 landing in Korea with 130,000 Samurai, but the campaign soon became bogged down.
a good book about this subject is:
Samurai Invasion: Japan's Korean War 1592 -1598
Quote:Exactly how many samurai could be fielded at a time in battle? Was the entire Japanese fighting force made up of samurai?
Japanese armies could be very big but towards the 15/16th century a large part of the army was made of ashigaru
Re: Rome vs Japan - Tarbicus - 08-07-2006
Thanks for that.
So basically, before the 15th C, the ashigaru ("light foot", or "light armoured") were mercenaries, and did not become minor samurai until the Edo Period, and in the Onin War were regarded as unruly? Is that correct?
What was the makeup of a typical Japanese army contemporary to the Roman Imperial legions?
How many samurai (I mean real samurai)?
How many ashuguru (I mean conscripts)?
To get back to the original point of the topic, I've seen nothing so far that would mean a samurai or ronin would paste a legionary. If you take into account the length of time it took to become a samurai, then he has to be put against a legionary of at least 5 years service, and also has to be as contemporary as possible which makes him between an 8th or 9th Century one (deemed little more than a barbarian by the Imperial court). Can we cut out all of the medieval references please?
Re: Rome vs Japan - MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS - 08-07-2006
Very sorry Tarbicvs....... we cannot cut out the medieval reference since it is the reference needed to study the samurai!
We cannot juxtapose a first century western(Roman) reference cadre onto a medieval military feudal and very very Eastern society.
the only scientific means we have in this discussion is comparison in numbers, battle tactics, military practice etcetera.
we cannot impose a Japanese imperial system, including various shogunates, to a Roman imperial system led by Generals AND!! the emperor!!!!!
M.VIB.M.
Re: Rome vs Japan - Tarbicus - 08-07-2006
Okay. I've still seen nothing so far that makes a medieval samurai more likely to defeat an Imperial legionary of long or some experience in single combat.
Re: Rome vs Japan - MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS - 08-07-2006
That is why a practice run with wooden swords would be a nice idea to put in practice...
The samurai wielding a bokken, the legionary his wooden gladivs.
at least three referees to make out the hits.....
as soon as my armor is ready, i will happily engage any roman legionary who is willing to practice.
M.VIB.M.
fun maybe but not scientific - Goffredo - 08-07-2006
This discussion may be real fun for someone, and indeed I've actually read most of the passages, but I fear it is very little scientific. So to be true to the spirt of this fun off-topic thread it is best to leave out any claims to be making, or attempting to make, a scientific discussion. Several of you are very knowledgable, but that does not make the discussion less arbitrary. The scenarios of a roman japanese confrontation are completely fantastic (in the sense of fantasy).
Indeed you may draw conclusions one way or the other but you have no way of supporting your claims by any realistic evidence what so ever. You choose the evidence you like, taking it arbitrarily out of context, forgetting the risks in doing so, make up a scenario that suites you best, and then claim to have done a scientific argument? It might be quite fun, but I fear it is not scientific at all.
Re: Rome vs Japan - Magnus - 08-08-2006
Ok, first...a Rant.
HOW THE HECK IN THE NAME OF EVERYTHING DID I MISS THIS THREAD!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
AAAARRRRGGGHHHH!!!
Sigh.
Ok.
First...I'll try and stay focused on the original topic.
So, having said that, many of you are under the impression that the katana was the main weapon of use by samurai. It's not. The katana was a sidearm, up until the Tokugawa shogunate's reign of "peace". Right up until that point, samurai primarily used either:
A) Yumi (bow)
B) Yari (spear)
C) Naginata (Polearm)
D) Teppo (Musket/rifle)
http://home.earthlink.net/~steinrl/polearms.htm
Other weapons that were used:
- No-Dachi (BIG Sword for breaking formations and anti-cavalry)
- Nagamaki (Kind of like a falx, used by warrior monks)
http://japantrip.tripod.com/nodachi/kashiwa_tachi.jpg
http://www.dynastyforge.com/products/ph ... i_nagi.jpg
Now let's talk about armour. This scenario is dealing with samurai (not ashigaru), in which case even lower ranking samurai had full sets of do-maru, which were made of lames of steel for the body in the least, and in lower cost armours, some components were 1/4" thick hardened buffalo hide, NOT leather. And almost certainly the "do" or body armour was made of steel plates. All these plates of course were then lacquered with Urushi. This armour was provided for by their Daimyo, who had money, and could afford well built suits, even if considered munitions grade.
http://www.sengokudaimyo.com/katchu/katchu.ch01.html
So...now, if you look at the original question, which was a legionary vs 1 samurai, you now have a few options with which to arm your samurai. There's a good chance that the nagimaki and naginata are going to make kindling out of a scutum. That's what they're made for. In which case the legionary is at a severe disadvantage without his shield, as the smaller gladius will have a hard time getting in close to someone with 6-8 feet of reach.
Without his shield, I believe the legionary is lost. In a one-on-one encounter with a samurai in this case, I believe the samurai is going to come out 9 out of 10 times on top. (samurai still has his naginata/nagamaki).
If using the yari which still has at least 2 cutting edges, sometimes 3, it would certainly be more difficult. However, should the Yari become firmly embedded in the scutum, as pila are made to do...chances are the legionary is going to drop his shield. Be tough to use it with a 7 foot spear sticking out of it.
In which case, we're back to a shieldless legionary. My vote is for the samurai again to top the legionary, say....8 times out of 10 in the case of katana vs gladius.
How about a bow? Hard to say...you have to figure out how far apart they're starting from each other....is the samurai a mounted archer? How many arrows? Can he get a lucky shot in past the shield? To me...this one has too many varriables...we'll call that one a draw.
Musket/rifle vs Legionary...hmmmm....if the shot goes through the scutum, will it penetrate the legionary's maille, or segmentata? What if it hits him in an unprotected area, like the arm, lower hips or face/neck? Again, this one depends on the variables...but if the rifeman is a good shot, he has a better than average chance of dropping the legionary before he ever gets close. We also don't know the stopping power of legionary armour vs musketballs, so this one is a hard one to qualify. I'm pretty sure though it would go through the wood of the scutum.
Now, if we take the katana armed samurai vs a legionary with gladius and scutum, the odds are a bit better for the legionary. However, he's still without his massed formations that utilize his comrade's scutum as added protection. He is still out-ranged in terms of attack with his smaller gladius...though not by a lot. Perhaps 6-10 inches, depending on the sword either person wields. This one is a tougher call...however, the samurai seems to hold the advantage. They've fought opponents with shields before, and have the advantage of armour which covers their entire body. Not to mention solid martial arts and constant, constant training to hone these arts. I'd have to say that given the slight advantage in terms of equipment to the samurai, as well as a more refined but varried form of training in combative arts, the samurai would come out on top a lot more than the legionary.
In fact, the one koryu (old school) art that I study, as well as Marcus, Katori Shinto Ryu, has very long, paired kata which are set up almost like a chess game, using blocks and strikes to open up incapacitating strikes to the enemies weaker areas. If I were fighting a Legionary, you can bet I'd be attacking his unarmoured swordarm, legs and face. I don't need to worry about his shield...when he thrusts with that sword, I'm going to take a step back out of his range, and counter-cut. If he tries to bash me with his sheild, I'll use it to my advantage and come around the shield on his shield arm side and cut him in the shield arm, or legs. With the katana's cutting edge, chances are I'd only need one cut to inflict some pretty serious bleeding. Then it's just a matter of time.
Myths:
Katana can't cut through gun barrels. But they can cut through plate to an extent. Run a search on "Kabutowari".
Katana are indestructable.
Ninja are exactly as portrayed by Hollywood.
Western styled swords are indestructable.
Japanese armour is made out of leather and wood.
Samurai never retreated.
Legionarys were "regimental" under their tunica.
Truths
Katana are probably the finest engineered swords in the world.
Ninja (shinobi) were in fact deployed as special forces type units. They're tasks ranged from full out battlefield combat, to espionage, recon, assasination, ambush and other jobs typically performed by modern SAS, GSG-9 and Navy Seal units.
Samurai have changed in every way since their conception to their end.
There is no real way to answer this thread...lol.
______
Anyway, that's my opinion based on some knowledge of both sides of the spectrum.
I think a Legion vs a Samurai army would be pretty interesting, but they were so far apart in terms of technology and era that it's pure speculation, and fruitless to say which one would win.
Re: Rome vs Japan - Magnus - 08-08-2006
Another myth buster:
The Mongols kicked the samurai's butts during both invasions.
First time...yes. Second time....the mongols couldn't even establish a beachhead.
http://ubpost.mongolnews.mn/virtual...divine_wind.htm
Re: Rome vs Japan - tlclark - 08-08-2006
Quote:Now let's talk about armour. This scenario is dealing with samurai (not ashigaru), in which case even lower ranking samurai had full sets of do-maru, which were made of lames of steel for the body in the least, and in lower cost armours, some components were 1/4" thick hardened buffalo hide, NOT leather. And almost certainly the "do" or body armour was made of steel plates. All these plates of course were then lacquered with Urushi. This armour was provided for by their Daimyo, who had money, and could afford well built suits, even if considered munitions grade.
This sounds much more like a klibanarii outfit, which suggests that what we are really comparing is ancient warfare to medieval warfare which is a porblem. I think a byzantine equites/knight of the 11th - 13th C. would be an equal or better than a samurai.
Our imaginary legionaire is a little out of his league, like putting a person from the Napoleonic wars against someone from the modern era.
Quote:Katana are probably the finest engineered swords in the world.
Small dissent here. They have a preserved tradition that can be examined. Swords from the 16th C. do not. And that's where we would look for western equivalents. So the question is unaswerable. It's like the speculations about what would have happened if the fall of Rome hadn't happened.
Quote:There is no real way to answer this thread...lol.
Sure there is. The Romans would buy off the feudal lords. Starve the countryside, sow the fields with salt and ship the prisoners thousands of miles away to the salt mines. In time, Japanese samurai would be some of their best auxilliaries. :wink:
Travis