Rome vs Japan

[Tiberius Geracius]

I just got into a long and heated argument with an Anime nut on who would win in a fight. A 1st-2nd century Legionary or an early version of a Samuri/Roni. Naturally I went with the Legionary, because he is wearing heaviery armor, is well disaplined, and fights as a soldier not a worrier. I must admit the samuri does have a few advantages over the Legionary, but is a group of Samuri on foot were to go up against a group of Legionary on foot I think the Legion would win 8 out of 10 times. What does everyone else think?

[Narukami]

Interesting topic...

In a one -on- one fight I would give the advantage to the samurai.

However, in a massed battle the Roman legion would, I believe, prevail in most encounters.

Side Note:

The word samurai does not mean "warrior" or knight, though that is how it is commonly used.

The Japanese have another word for warrior: bushi.
From which we get bushido - The Way Of The Warrior (Do meaning way or path).

The literal translation of the word samurai is "One who serves." This is key to understanding them. They lived to serve and when they no longer had a master or lord to serve they ceased to be samurai.

By the time of the Tokugawa shogunate (after 1600) few samurai were engaged in military activities. In fact most were caught up in the vast bureaucracy need to run the country. Peace was very hard on the samurai who found themselves increasingly eclipsed by the economic power of the chonin, the merchant class, who the samurai considered well beneath them in social standing.

This is why samurai like Miyamoto Musashi or the 47 Ronin standout as examples of those who posses the true spirit of bushido.

But I digress...

:wink:

Narukami

[Jona Lendering]

Narukami, have you, perhaps, seen Ghost Dog, and do you have an opinion about it? I thought it was a fine movie and would like to know more about this man's samurai code.

[Robert Vermaat]

In a one -on- one fight I would give the advantage to the samurai.

Me too. But mostly because
a) The Roman represents heavy infantry and in a one-on-one fight that is a disadvantage
b) The gladius is not as useful in a duel as the (longer) samurai sword would be. The Roman would be at a disadvantage due to blade lenght alone.

[Jeroen Pelgrom]

on the other hand, a Roman soldier has a shield, a samurai does not...

[Tiberius Geracius]

Also keep in mind that most Samurai didnt wear metal armor. Only the richest of the Samurai could afford it. Another thing the Kitana (longest of the 3 swords they carried) is in truth not the best weapon to use against an armored unit. They were made out of Iron (what little the country had), but was made with the idea that it was going to go up against either cloth wearing infantry or leather wearing Samurai. I blame movies and some Anime for distorting the truth about the Samurai. Narukami I am impressed with your knowledge of Japans history. I my self have been drawn towards it, but with all of my other college classes I have little time for personal reaserch. I had to also remind my friend that the Legion fell about 1000 years before the time of the Samurai. So one on one favors the Samurai, but group on group strongly favors the Romans.

[tlclark]

Basically I'm with Robert and David on this. Military formations of the Romans are just superior.

A few caveats however:

The strength and usefulness of the katana is GREATLY exaggerated and burnished by Hollywood. It's a good sword, it's not freaking Glamdring. Pattern welding remains the main technique of most Katanas. Pattern welding really has its limits, Katanas takes the techinque to its limits but I'd bet any Spanish blade from 16th Toledo would be superior.

The lamellar armor of the samurai is really better than expected.

Now how about a REAL question. Who is better, Samurai or a Byzantine Klibarnarii?

Travis

[john m roberts]

It should also be noted that in the civil wars of the 15th-16th centuries the samurai and their ashigaru (light foot) supporters pretty much dropped the old individualistic glory-hound style of fighting and fought in dense ranks armed with long spears. Romans fighting a Japanese army of this period would be facing something resembling a formation of Swiss pikemen, a very different proposition from the Japanese armies of earlier centuries.

[P. Lilius Frugius Simius]

It should also be noted that in the civil wars of the 15th-16th centuries the samurai and their ashigaru (light foot) supporters pretty much dropped the old individualistic glory-hound style of fighting and fought in dense ranks armed with long spears. Romans fighting a Japanese army of this period would be facing something resembling a formation of Swiss pikemen, a very different proposition from the Japanese armies of earlier centuries.

But not very unlike to the Macedonian phalanx they had already beaten in the Republican era... While important, the Japanese spear massed formations needed both arrow and musket support to be effective, specially against cavalry raids from the flank, like all spear formations...

It's an interesting what-if question, but we should consider lots of matters, not just weapon length or armor availability, in a one-on-one stance, the personal value as fighter of each one is also as important. The best fighter would probably win over the other, each one using their own weapons and armor... Again, not the same a Sengoku Jidai veteran than a XVIII Tokugawa officer, martials arts training (kobujutsu ryûha) or not...

signing off, back to work :-P P

[Robert Vermaat]

Basically I'm with Robert and David on this. Military formations of the Romans are just superior.

Good for you.

The strength and usefulness of the katana is GREATLY exaggerated and burnished by Hollywood. It's a good sword, it's not freaking Glamdring.

Nevertheless, it has a sharp point and a sharp edge, and it's longer than a gladius.. No, I guess it could not cut through a shield (never mind the legionary!) in one blow..

Now how about a REAL question. Who is better, Samurai or a Byzantine Klibanarii?

One-on-one?
I go for the armoured bloke on the armoured horse, he has the longer weapon. Samurai did not fly through the air backwards making a dozen attacks in one 'flight', as Hong Kong TV has us believe..

[Narukami]

So many interesting threads here...

A few thoughts inspired by these many insightful posts:

John Roberts is quite correct, the warriors of Japan did evolve over time, and although they always harkened back, with nostalgia, for those earlier more "heroic" days, they still recognized useful military innovations when they saw them.

Likewise Simius correctly points out that a combat veteran will probably fair better in a one on one fight than would a samurai from the relatively peaceful days of 18th century Japan, no matter how well trained in the martial arts.

How true of both the samurai and the legionary.

In terms of armor and weapons, TL Clark is correct that the Japanese armor was really quite good, though it too, as will other items, changed over time. In fact, in the late Sengoku jidai (The period of the Country at war) some helmets and armor were showing interesting interpretations of European designs.

I do disagree with some of the thoughts expressed about the Japanese sword.

The Samurai normally carried two swords (it was a mark of his rank and by law only samurai could wear two) the main weapon being the katana. (There was a longer version, sometimes worn on the back and measuring 5', called a no-dachi. Like the two handed Great Sword it was an interesting weapon but of limited practicality in combat.) Indeed, much has been made by Hollywood about the strength of the katana and there are stories of Japanese officers during the Russo-Japanese war slicing clean through the barrels of water-cooled machine guns. Such stories are always exciting but they are probably just that -- stories.

However...

Japanese sword making was amazing and I think superior to all others. In this I would refer to Jacob Bronowski who, when speaking about metallurgy and the art of sword making said:

"They reach their climax, for me, in the making of the Japanese sword, which has been going on in one way or another since AD 800. The making of the sword, like all ancient metallurgy, is surrounded with ritual, and that is for a clear reason. When you have no written language, when you have nothing that can be called a chemical formula, then you must have a precise ceremonial which fixes the sequence of operations so that they are exact and memorable."
--J Bronowski The Ascent Of Man Chap. 4 The Hidden Structure

In the hands of an expert, like Musashi, a katana would be a formidable weapon.

One side note:

Japanese military tactics did evolve over time. When firearms first appeared the Japanese embraced them as useful weapons but they also hated them for what they did -- they gave a common ashigaru the ability to kill a Samurai, no matter how well trained or heroically courageous, at little or no risk to himself.

They hated it, but they also knew they needed it in order to achieve victory and the ancient Japanese, like the ancient Romans, were a practical and pragmatic people.

What is of interest is that once the Tokugawa Shoguns had established peace and stability throughout Japan, the samurai effectively turned their back on firearms. Noel Perrin's book Giving Up The Gun covers this fascinating aspect of Japanese military history.

Bit I digress once again. My apologies. :oops:

Who would win: Samurai Or Roman Legionary?

Perhaps we might gain a clue by looking at the two Mongol invasions of Japan and comparing these battles with those that the Romans fought against eastern nomadic armies.

In individual fights the samurai more than held his own, and often surprised the Mongols with his skill and courage. However, had it not been for the intervention of the kamikaze, it is very likely the Mongol invasion would have succeeded, and history would have taken a very different course.

There is also another important question that is really at the heart of this thread.

Samurai vs. Legionary

Is that not the same as asking who would win: Warrior vs. Soldier?

Forgive my being verbose, but this is a topic close to the heart.

:wink:

Narukami

[Narukami]

Narukami, have you, perhaps, seen Ghost Dog, and do you have an opinion about it? I thought it was a fine movie and would like to know more about this man's samurai code.

Ah Ghost Dog -- an excellent film, the best from Jim Jarmusch.

The Japanese love gangster films, either their own (Yakuza films, the comedian Beat Takeshi has done some excellent ones recently) or from Hollywood (the Godfather trilogy is very popular in Japan, they view it as a Samurai Tragedy). Jarmusch has taken this genre and, as is his wont, turned it on its head and pushed it to the limits and beyond.

The book Ghost Dog refers to is the Hagakure, the Book of Leaves written by Yamamoto Tsunetomo.

Two other books that might be of interest to you are:

Bushido by Inazo Nitobe

The Book Of Five Rings by Miyamoto Musashi

Musashi was famous for fighting with two swords and his life story is the subject of several books and films, fiction and non-fiction alike.

There is an on going argument that the very existence of these books attests to the decline of the samurai. Such books and codes of conduct did not exist in ancient times, so the argument goes, because they were not necessary. The constant wars the samurai fought shaped their conduct. However, when peace broke out, and the samurai moved away form the arts of war to the arts of bureaucracy, they needed codes to remind them of who there were and where they came from.

The story of the 47 Ronin is a case in point and the classic example of 18th samurai who understood clearly what it meant to be samurai.

You should be able to find these books on Amazon, I think all are in print. There are also several versions of the 47 Ronin story, including plays and films. For film I recommend Chushingura (the 1962 version) directed by Hiroshi Inagaki. It is long and very deliberate in its pacing, however, to my mind it is the best.

:wink:

Narukami

[Narukami]

Narukami I am impressed with your knowledge of Japans history. I my self have been drawn towards it, but with all of my other college classes I have little time for personal reaserch.

Thank you Tiberius, your comments are most gracious.

In fact, the knowledge of Ancient Rome displayed by the members here far exceeds my modest knowledge of Japanese history (to say nothing of my amateur status in Roman history). That is one of the reasons I frequent this site -- the depth of knowledge here is truly impressive.

Like you I was drawn to Ancient Japan while I was working on my BA in History, however I got lucky in that I finished my requirements for a major in History early and spent my senior year in the Asian Studies department. Unfortunately, no one was well versed in Ancient Japan so I had to settle for modern history.

Then, in graduate school, though qualified no one was interested in teaching pre-modern Japanese History. However there were two professors who were experts on Japanese theatre: Bunraku and Kabuki. Well, these took their stories from pre-modern history and were themselves products of that time period so I switched my field of study and never looked back.

An MA in Asian Theatre may not be a very practical degree, but it was a lot of fun and never a dull moment. :wink:

Narukami

[Jona Lendering]

Thanks!

[tlclark]

WARNING:

Big post-modern art history rant ahead!! Turn back now! You have been warned.

Ok.

I would agree with everything David says except this:

Japanese sword making was amazing and I think superior to all others.

I would say that Japanese sword is as good as it can possibly be given the limitations of pattern welding. Make no mistake. It is a remarkable achievement, but it was not superior to what Europeans could do. The reason we think so is an accident of history.

Allow me to elucidate. Sword-making is military technology. Military technology is held close to the vest, for important reasons. Should knowledge of you trade expand it undercuts your market and puts your nation at risk to others. Feudal societies reinforce this trend, since empires diseminate military knowledge for the sake of the empire more easily that feudal societies.

There are, therefore, very few medieval sources (eastern or western) on military technology (or even martial arts)

There is a however, a general and pervasive belief that japanese sword-making is superior. Why? Simple. Japan preserved its traditional ways well into the 19th C. There are still sword makers today in japan, still making fabulous swords, in the traditional manner. We can evaluate japanese swords, ancient and modern, in light of this knowledge and skill base. We can greatly appreciate the skill of the craftsmen (and they are legion, forging, fitting, polishing and sharpening are all separate professions in the Japanese sword making trade) and it embellishes the impression of the Japanese sword, and its process, as something special.

We can't do this for a 16th C. spanish blade because those craftsmen and their traditions did not survive the advances of pikemen and gunpowder. The great smithhouses of spain and Italy and elsewhere did not endure much past the 17th C. By the 19th C., blades were generally much less sophisticated and many 19th edged weapons were purely for show.

The loss of craftsmanship and native tradition greatly informs our disposition of the past and its relative worth and development.

A japanese Katana has a legacy that a spanish flamberge simply can match because the culture that created one endured and the other did not.

This informs our opinion of their relative worth.

Now I'm not a metal expert, but I have been told that the 16th C. was the era of greatest sword making in Europe.

To compare, a katana is pattern welded from many different varieties of iron in laminations. The edge and core, as well as the spine are all made up of various pattern-welded steels that are best suited to that part of the weapon. The spine is flexible and the edge is harder, right where it needs to be. We know exactly how this is done, and it is very impressive.

When we look at a comparable 16th C. sword from Toledo (NOT Ohio) we see a very different weapon. No pattern welding, one solid piece of steel that somehow, and this is amazing, varies in hardness and carbon content over the length of the blade. The edge is hard high carbon steel, the core, more flexible and lower in carbon. Even the crystalline structure varies across the blade, tight where it needs to be hard and sharp, long where it needs flexibility.

How do you do this?!! Modern smiths have replicated this...somewhat... by varying forge and metal tempature, "cold"-forging, and other techniques.

This is just amazing. A Katana represents one principle technique - pattern welding - honed to perfection. A lack of naturally harder iron ores, like those in Europe, probably led to the necessity of perfecting this method. The techniques of the spanish blade are obviously far more complicated, and presume a great deal more metallurgic know-how, but we can't verify it, or even marvel about it. It's lost.

The knowledge of how to do this disappeared, and the swords fell out of use and their legend along with it.

The legend of the katana lives on, and its reputation surpassed the Toledo smiths, even though I think you can make an argument the spanish blade is a better blade.

In a way it's a lot like Erwin Panofsky's theories on Gothic art, based on Abbot Suger's writings on St. Denis. He credits Suger with the theoretical formation of Gothic. But there's a big problem with all this that Peter Kidson points out. Why did he use Suger's writings? because that's all that survives from that period! Presumably if we had other books we could write other theories, but we have to take what survives.

Now I'm not a metallurgical expert and I'm relying an awful lot on what some colleagues have told me, but I do know that history is based on what survives.

I know the Katana is a fabulous sword, but I suspect if we had a surviving band of hardy Toledo Smiths still toiling away, we would have fabulous anthropology films of them at work too and their blades would be just as popular, and show up just as often in comic books, movies and pop culture, particularly if a band of Spanish knights had survived into the 19th C.

Come to think of it, that would be a REALLY cool plot for an alternative history novel.

Hang on, I have to call my agent!

Travis