Rome vs Japan

[Martin Wallgren]

On the AMAZING katana video...

If only, IF ONLY there were still craftsman from the north of spain making swords we would have videos like this for spanish steel!!

Sigh.

We could ask Angus Trim or Peter Johnsson for a donation of one of their exellent swords for a simillar test. But we also have to ask us Why? If I was a gunner and some brave warrior was running towards me with a sword I would not aim for the swordedge, more likley for the man in general and the hits on the barrel speaks volumes ...

[Robert Vermaat]

but...if the romans managed to get into close combat there phalanx type tactics would probably beat the samurai in the long run

Hi Silverbeard,

Please add your real name to your signature - that's a forum rule.

The Romans did not use phalanx-type tactics.

[Praefectusclassis]

The Romans did not use phalanx-type tactics

When? And if you believe Speidel & Wheeler, they came back in the 2nd C AD. :wink:

[Robert Vermaat]

The Romans did not use phalanx-type tactics

When?

I'm no expert on early Roman tactics, but even the pre-Marian triple rank formations of hastati, principes and triarii were no phalangial formation, right? If the Romans ever used a true phalanx, that would go back until when?

And if you believe Speidel & Wheeler, they came back in the 2nd C AD. :wink:

No, Speidel and Wheeler do not suggest that. It's a common mistake to compare the Later Roman infantry tactics with the ancient Greek Phalanx tactics, but both Speidel and especially Wheeler clearly state that these are not the same.

Wheeler, moreover, is of the opinion that the Roman army never used ONLY manipular tactics, he interprets Arrian's tactics not as an innovation but as a use of the tctical inventory of the Roman army. Wheeler is also clear about the nature and function of Late Roman phalanx-like tactis. he uses the term 'phalangial legion' only to distinguish fromthe 'manipular legion', in the sense that the 'phalangial legion' is organised in one single formation. These formations were never like a true phalanx with a forest of very long spears, but based more on the shield wall as a defensive formation. Unlike the Greek dory, Late Roman hastae were of the same lenght, and the ranks using the hasta were not more than 4 deep, the ranks behind them supporting the first 4 with heavy covering fire by shooting arrows and throwing javelins and plumbatae.

Even here we see a development: from Arrian to Late Roman times it's clear that the 'Roman phalanx' was used to stop cavalry attacks in the first place. We also see that the cavalry's role increased: Arrian uses cavalry mainly after the enemy withdraws, but later it is the infantry that develops into a supporting role for the cavalry, as a safe base to withdraw on or to hold the centre while the cavalry attacks from the flanks.

This is very unlike a phalanx.[/quote]

[Tarbicus]

If the Romans ever used a true phalanx, that would go back until when?

Roughly the 4th C. BC, according to Sekunda, during which they switched to manipular tactics that were being used elsewhere in Italy.

"In ancient times when the Romans used rectangular shields, the Etruscans fought in phalanx using bronze shields, but having compelled the Romans to adopt the same equipment they were themselves defeated."
Diodorus

"The Romans took close battle formation from the Etruscans, who used to attack in a phalanx."
"Athenaeus"

Livy apparently remarks that before the introduction of military pay the Romans had employed the round shield in a Macedonian style phalanx.

Hoplite tactics are associated with Servius Tullius, and Festus comments that in ancient times, what he called an exercitus then, used to be known as a classis clipeata (the classis armed with a hoplite shield, clipeus being latin for hoplite shield).

From Osprey's Early Roman Armies.

[Praefectusclassis]

Unlike the Greek dory, Late Roman hastae were of the same lenght

Never heard that before. We are talking about the classical Greek phalanx here, right?

[Robert Vermaat]

Unlike the Greek dory, Late Roman hastae were of the same lenght

Never heard that before. We are talking about the classical Greek phalanx here, right?

I guess I'm think of the Macedonian phalanx here. The word should not be dory, but sarissa. I'm so NOT an expert in classical Greek warfare that I can't begin to imagin when that formation began.

I guess this is a classical phalanx?


I think I had this in mind for a Macedonian phalanx:

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

I was under the impression the Greek hoplite spear was only about 9 feet long? Correct me if I am wrong!

The weapon used in the era of Thermopolae, was a stabbing, thrusting spear, not a pike!?

Regards

[Roma Invictus]

(hey everyone.. longtime no see.. lol)
one thing I have to say, Japanese warfare was 1 on 1 until the Mongol Invasions, and even then they struggled to get it right. so in the Roman days, with a full legion (since Legionaires NEVER fought alone) Rome would stomp Japan, due to Rome's expertice in massed conflict (talking about the Roman days here, early ADs)

then there's the distance from the Roman Empire to Japan, you think all those peoples would willingly let either armed force walk through their lands?
then the other thing was, the first hint of a Samurai was in 646 AD (I believe) so in the Roman days (talking about pre-dark ages) Rome would win. my question is: did Japan even have an army in the early ADs? before 646, if so obviously it was still 1 on 1 warfare

[tlclark]

The thread lives!!!

Man I've been gone too long.

[Narukami]

You have been gone too long TLC.

Welcome home Doctor.


:wink:

Narukami

[karate kid x]

please pardon my spelling here

first off, the major impression people have about samauri come from hero stories, which are often over-glorifying and fanciful. The major impression people have about the Roman legionaries, is just another cog in the machine. hardly glorifying to any particular person.

Samuri were not quite the sort or "warriors" people are thinking about, actually they were pretty much the local police or the henchman of their respective diamu. The samauri were pretty separated from each-other, and were therefore pretty hetrogenous.

The romans on the other-hand, were pretty much united and organized; they suffered less from domestic conflicts and were able to have the benefit of the experience from pretty much the entire roman empire in their training.


also, as far as 1v1 fighting goes, it all depends on who is the better fighter. Some legionaries can beat some samauri, and some samauri can beat some legionaries. This is true for all similar examples.


Now, i may not know near as much about actual historic fighting, but as a semi-larper (the dagohir/belegarth kind), my experience has shown me that a smaller, less clumsy weapon (such as the gladius, which was really seldom used anyway) is actually better used in a 1v1 fight, and longer weapons are better used when fighting as a team. The idea is that with a shorter weapon, you have to get closer and focus most all your attention on who you're fighting. In a 1v1 situation this works in your favor because it's easier to charge in to close range than to escape from it and long weapons are more unwieldy at closer range. But in a team fight, you want a longer weapon, so you have more choices for who you want to attack, and so you can be closer to your own friendly teammates, than to the hostile teammates of your target.

[Senovara]

Karate Kid x, please add a signature and put your real name in it. It's a forum rule.

Thanks.

[Tarbicus]

But in a team fight, you want a longer weapon, so you have more choices for who you want to attack, and so you can be closer to your own friendly teammates, than to the hostile teammates of your target.

There's a reference in the primary sources to how legionaries fought when in formation. They leapt from the line, stabbed (or whatever) their target, and jumped back into line again. The short stabbing sword, if what you say is true, would be the perfect choice of weapon for a legionary in formation if the primary source is correct (can't remember who it was right now).

[Steakslim]

Okay I'm gonna be a thread necromancer

Here are a few things I would like to clarify

1 The Romans were trained in all sorts of martial arts

2 Roman blades are made high quality steel

3 Spathas were superior to the katana

4 The katana wasn't used much and didn't attain its cult like status until the 1600's and it will break just as easily as a medieval blade and it's rather fragile

5 The No-Dachi is a rather crude weapon and was used by peasants

6 The samurai (Pre 1600's) would have used a tachi

7 What era combatants are we talking about?

8 The legionaries were professional soldiers, the samurai was a warrior and not all samurai were combatants

9 If rome was powerful enough to expand into japan...

8 Each legion had sixty ballistae, along with archers, they also had the cheiroballista, manuballista, onagers, scorpios, arcuballista, cheiroballista, horse archers, various auxilaries, stone thrower ballistae, along with a ballista that worked like somewhat a gatling gun

10 The romans had factories to mass produce gear

11 They had better cavalry (Lets see a samurai fight a clibanarius)

12 Bushido and all the ki stuff... that only took off during the meiji period when samurai were little more than butterflies

13 The fights between portugese sailors and samurai the only time a sailor lost was when he was so drunk he barely stand up

14 The romans had sniper/sharpshooter units and organized intelligence
agencies, and the ninja came to be around the 1400's I'd like to see a ninja fight a praetorian, a Speculatore, an Arcanius, an Agens In Rusbes, a Praevenatore, A frumentarius...

15 The romans also hated to retreat and they would fight to the death if need be

16 The romans would also be bigger than the samurai

17 The gladius is horrific cutting tool

OT: The europeans had their own martial arts that were I daresay more brutal and effective than japanese martial arts, plate armor wasn't super heavy and clumsy, swords didn't weigh forty pounds