Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Rome vs Japan
#31
LOL!

Ok, this is silly.

let's stop.


















alright some more...

Teletubbies vs. Ernie & Bert

Young Marlon Brando vs. Old Marlon Brando

The Doric order vs. Deconstructionism

Da Vinci vs. Dan Brown

Dan Brown vs. Art History

Art History vs. Hamburger flipping jobs.

This topic vs. Relevancy

Pi vs. the Gravitational Constant!!

My pocket lint vs. Tarby's toenail clippings!

Let's rumble.
Theodoros of Smyrna (Byzantine name)
aka Travis Lee Clark (21st C. American name)

Moderator, RAT

Rules for RAT:
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.romanarmy.com/rat/viewtopic.php?Rules">http://www.romanarmy.com/rat/viewtopic.php?Rules for posting

Oh! and the Toledo helmet .... oh hell, forget it. :? <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_confused.gif" alt=":?" title="Confused" />:?
Reply
#32
Quote:being a student and instructor of kenjutsu and aikijujutsu and rather well studied on feudal japan, and the tactics and capabilities of samurai and bushi, i must insist that the samurai would eat a legion alive, their bows were monstrous and powerful, their swords sharper (you really have no idea unless you've cut with one, master nakamura cut through 5 goza, that's the density of 5 human bodies!!!), longer and stronger and their fluidity and skill of movement and fearlessness of death unimaginable, inconceivable even to a western mind. the samurai were trained from about age 7 and by the time most were 12/13 they were facing hardened adult killers successfully on the battle field, not all samurai were of horse rank, so they are not dependent on cavalry tactics, and their work with the yari and naginata (spears and pole arms) is something to behold. I've got mad love for Rome and the legion but i think the samurai would out maneuver and massacre a what honestly was a rather rigid fighting schism concerning the legion, however there would no doubt be heavy losses fort he samurai

Jason,

Good points all.

I note that you are a recent addition to our forum -- welcome!

I also note that you are trained in kenjutsu, as opposed to kendo, which leads me to wonder if you have trained with or are familiar with Donn F Draeger? I took a course from him at the UH and one of the first points he made was the distinction between Martial Arts and Martial Ways. Few realize the distinction even exists let alone understand its significance. I salute you.

Generally I agree with your points. It was said that Tamijima was so skilled with the naginata that he could knock arrows out of the air. Likewise, the fearlessness of the bushi is truly remarkable.

However, I do think that when it comes to rigid tactical thinking the samurai could be just as guilty as the Romans. The battle of Nagashimo comes readily to mind.

Again welcome to our forum. Your study of the past, and your experiences in the present, will no doubt add great depth to our discussions.

(It has been more years than I care to remember since I was last at Ft. Hood, but I doubt it has changed one bit. :wink: )

Narukami
David Reinke
Burbank CA
Reply
#33
Quote:their bows were monstrous and powerful, their swords sharper (you really have no idea unless youve cut with one, master nakamura cut through 5 goza, thats the density of 5 human bodies!!!), longer and stronger and their fluidity and skill of movement and fearlessness of death unimaginable, unconceivable even to a western mind.

I get frightened just listening to this description! I disagree of course. Even the best weapons and training don't guarantee victory.

And a point for staying on topic!

Travis

more death matches

Kate Moss vs. a saltine and a glass of water!
Fat Oprah vs. Skinny Oprah!
Theodoros of Smyrna (Byzantine name)
aka Travis Lee Clark (21st C. American name)

Moderator, RAT

Rules for RAT:
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.romanarmy.com/rat/viewtopic.php?Rules">http://www.romanarmy.com/rat/viewtopic.php?Rules for posting

Oh! and the Toledo helmet .... oh hell, forget it. :? <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_confused.gif" alt=":?" title="Confused" />:?
Reply
#34
Quote:and fearlessness of death unimaginable, unconceivable even to a western mind.
I hope you're not referring to legionaries there. Josephus shows us what they could get up to in small numbers against all odds, even without orders.
TARBICvS/Jim Bowers
A A A DESEDO DESEDO!
Reply
#35
Quote:
Quote:and fearlessness of death unimaginable, unconceivable even to a western mind.
I hope you're not referring to legionaries there. Josephus shows us what they could get up to in small numbers against all odds, even without orders.

And don't forget Julian! The Romans were nearly routed after taking the Antonia and one man, one man, Julian drove the zealots back to the courtyard and slipped and fell. He died but saved the night raid from disaster.

Roman skill, initiative and bravery, indeed, virtus, is very much not in doubt.

Travis
Theodoros of Smyrna (Byzantine name)
aka Travis Lee Clark (21st C. American name)

Moderator, RAT

Rules for RAT:
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.romanarmy.com/rat/viewtopic.php?Rules">http://www.romanarmy.com/rat/viewtopic.php?Rules for posting

Oh! and the Toledo helmet .... oh hell, forget it. :? <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_confused.gif" alt=":?" title="Confused" />:?
Reply
#36
ok i agree that at times under certain leadership the samurai were as inflexible as "typical" (not all) legion tactics were. your unwillingness to accept victory on behalf of the samurai doesnt change what i believe to be truth, we'll just agree to disagree in this matter with no sufficient history of engagement to draw upon. i just think warriors trained from such a young age in such a devout discipline with a greater technology and technique of weapons use would prevail, i will say no more on this matter.

dreager? hmmmmmmmmmm the name sounds familiar, but honestly no, perhaps ive read of him, which ryu is he affiliated with?

and i feel for anyone who has been to ft hood, and no im sure it hasnt changed much, god forsaken place.

lastly there were many great romans and legionares of noble and heroic proportions, it would be more interesting to pitt a champion of each together, but i fear fellow lovers of rome, the same tragic outcome.....kiaaaaaiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii!!! lol

good thoughts and points on this though everyone

as far as bert and ernie vs the teletubbies, i hope they deal each other a death blow all of them
-Jason

(GNAEVS PETRONIVS CANINVS, LEGIIAPF)


"ADIVTRIX PIA FIDELIS"
Reply
#37
Well without a time machine we'll never know.

More likely than not, both Samurai and Legionaire would likely be allies and come after us!

Traivs
Theodoros of Smyrna (Byzantine name)
aka Travis Lee Clark (21st C. American name)

Moderator, RAT

Rules for RAT:
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.romanarmy.com/rat/viewtopic.php?Rules">http://www.romanarmy.com/rat/viewtopic.php?Rules for posting

Oh! and the Toledo helmet .... oh hell, forget it. :? <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_confused.gif" alt=":?" title="Confused" />:?
Reply
#38
Dr. Draeger was, probably, the creator of Hoplology as a Science.

(N.B. please understand ^ as macrons over vowels... that or doubling vowels, as I'm not firing the Unicode tool this late xD )

While I cannot fully agree with his distinction between Budô and Bujutsu, he may have a point (until, that is, you find koryû with both jûjutsu and jûdô, for example, and they are the same xD

As for the samurai, they were (Sengoku Jidai) fearsome, true. But a battle is not only a matter of individual prowess, and the Japanese were not precisely brilliant in tactical and strategical terms, beng the frontal asault of massed troops the usual thing... That said, give me an inspired Roman general and some veteran legions over any number of fantastic troops any day...

Marius? Sulla? Caesar? Constantine? Julian? Aetius? Any day!

Personal ability is important in one-on-one situations, but Ruyhâ training is very different from military drill, and the most important element of Human battle was and always will be troops morale.

Roman uirtus (not like the artificial, Tokugawa/Meiji-propaganded Bushidô; but not unlike the old, true Bunbu no ichi), as Travis mentioned before in this thread, imposed strict bounds to the legionnaires (specially officer and NCOs, and we know Centurios are the bosses!) and discipline imposed an insurmountable dose of morale... If their legatus had charisma, the enemies were condemned, no matter how many or how fierce... and History proves that.

Now, some Japanese armies (probably/surely led by the Big Guys of the XV-XVI, Taiko Hideyoshi, and later Nobunaga or Shôgun Tokugawa) were as fearsome... I want 'em!

It's just that martial arts, per se are not as important in war as Hollywood may lead us to believe... Why would some samurai bujutsu training be significant for a massed ashigaru army, specially the peasant-levied-type of ashigaru that appeared later in History? Romans and Greeks had martial arts as well (even the word we use for the term, and the translation of "Bujutsu" is Latin and the Roman War God!) and I don't think they were as inneffective when compared to the Japanese... Same go for the Indians, Persians, Libyans, Egyptians, Chinese and others that met Rome or its neighbors...

Lastly, while yumi were terrible, I don't think they were that different from the symmetrical Persian or Partian or Alan bows, or the assymetrical Hunnic bows... Taking time into account, the only Romans vs Japanese realities would be Late Byzantine Armies vs Early Heian Troops, which were massed cavalry archers... Romans were used to the Parthians using that tactics for a milennia, and the Turks had pretty powerful asymmetrical and symmetrical bows themselves (after all they managed to make a huge empire after the Mongols, which were feasome themselves, Chingis Khan? Oops!)... Romans were used to deal with bows, anyway, from times immemorial in their History, and they would deal with massed yumi as well... more power, more distance... yeah, sure, but Greeks found a solution at Marathon, Romans would have found another solution later on... :-) )

Romans were not invincible (obviously) but they were pretty tough guys themselves, no need to overpower the eastern martial abilities, Hollywood's done lots of damage... fire weapons have done so as well to western martial arts, I'd bet a good Spanish rapier fencer (destreça de las armas) or a good English quarterstaff fighter on any Menkyô Kaiden of yore or today to be, at least, they fair equals in combat...

And, Musashi was a great swordsman and poet, but Francisco Quevedo was even greater, surely in the bun part, and I'd fear him on the Bu part (even fencing masters feared and hated him, he once got the hat from one of the greatest masters's (Luis Pacheco de Narváez) head with the tip of his sword during a demonstration before Duke of Medina-Sidonia, the martial arts patron of the time... VERY embarrasing! Quevedo was in prison for a while the day after the dinner, LOL! URI with data on this and more:http://www.biography.com/search/article.do?id=9431419 )

BTW, the documented fights between samurai and spanish/portugese fencers were usually mutual killings... so far, so good

anyway... interesting/fun discussion... :-) )
laters!
Episkopos P. Lilius Frugius Simius Excalibor, :. V. S. C., Pontifex Maximus, Max Disc Eccl
David S. de Lis - my blog: <a class="postlink" href="http://praeter.blogspot.com/">http://praeter.blogspot.com/
Reply
#39
The test of a successful military machine is: can it beat a foreign equivalent? The dictator Hideyoshi sent a huge army to conquer China, made up for the most part of veterans of the recently concluded series of civil wars. It was probably about as good an army as the samurai ever had. It never got all the way through Korea. Nobody makes a big deal over the martial prowess of the Koreans, but they stopped and repelled an invading samurai army despite being saddled with one of the most inept and cowardly kings who ever lived. In fact, reading accounts of that war, it's hard to decide who deserved to lose more. The Japanese leadership was utterly incompetent with generals contending for individual glory instead of cooperating for victory. The Korean leadership was about as bad, with a few brilliant exceptions like Admiral Yi. The king always punished any hint of military competence because he feared any successful general as a rival. In the end, it was the population who were determined to expel the invading army and succeeded.
Pecunia non olet
Reply
#40
Quote:The test of a successful military machine is: can it beat a foreign equivalent?.

That's a good point, though "equivalent" might prove to be a problematic term.

Crassus comes quickly to mind. Would his war with the Parthians fall into this 'contest of equivalents' and thus his defeat prove the supremacy of the Parthian military system?

To my mind it does prove that Crassus was a tired old man, never a great commander to begin with, whose arrogance and foolishness lead to the destruction of his legions.

Would Gaius Julius Caesar have done better? We will never know thanks to Brutus and the other Senators.

The Japanese invasion of Korea is a fascinating topic, though there is little available in English that deals with this war. (The major exception being Stephen Turnbull's Samurai Invasion: Japan's Korean War 1592-1598 ISBN 0304359483) The were plenty of colorful samurai commanders (Kato Kiyomasa "The Tiger Slayer") and plenty of incompetent ones too, but I wonder if this truly was the "best" army Japan could muster at that time. Full of veterans -- yes, however many good samurai remained in Japan with their own agendas. As with most commanders, when asked to send troops they often retain the best and send all of their "soldiers of the month" so to speak. (The scratch airborne unit assembled by the Germans for the Battle Of The Bulge in a case in point.)

As of this is very interesting, and a lot of fun (Col Klink vs. Col Sanders not withstanding...)

However...

I return again to what I think is the central question under lying this discussion: In asking Samurai vs. Legionary are we in fact asking Warrior vs. Soldier?

Or am I missing the point?

Narukami
David Reinke
Burbank CA
Reply
#41
a soldier with a true grasp of warrior ethos and living a warriors way outside of his employ as soldier is something to be reckoned with, a serious combatant with honor and ideals not merely agreed to but believed and bled for willingly, wantingly and with no thought for his own life to the point he would take it tp preserve the sanctity of his service should he fail....something to consider

and the koreans learned alot from the japanese kumdo is basicaly kenjutsu, hwarangdo and hapkido.....took alot from aiki, and im not syaing japan didnt inherit anything from anyone just saying, the koreans arent pushovers, the hwarang were monstrous too!

no thing equals another in any capacity save itself, even a reproduction has the disadvantage or advantage pending incident of being older or newer
-Jason

(GNAEVS PETRONIVS CANINVS, LEGIIAPF)


"ADIVTRIX PIA FIDELIS"
Reply
#42
It doesn't matter. The Romans had the tactical, logistical, technological, motivational, organisational, engneering and martial skils that saw them at the top of the food chain for the better part of a thousand years in western europe. They got their arses kicked now and again, but they always learned from those mistakes and were quite willing to turn their enemies' own methods against them, and do it better. They wouldn't give up.

When it came to fighting other nations they were the best during the most part of their time. Had Perry sailed up the Tiber with gunships I'm damned sure the Romans would have had their own metal fleet at Ravenna within five years, by hook or by crook, and there would have been legions of riflemen ready to deploy from hot air balloons invented by Greeks Big Grin
TARBICvS/Jim Bowers
A A A DESEDO DESEDO!
Reply
#43
Quote: Had Perry sailed up the Tiber with gunships I'm damned sure the Romans would have had their own metal fleet at Ravenna within five years, by hook or by crook, and there would have been legions of riflemen ready to deploy from hot air balloons invented by Greeks Big Grin

Quite so, and in fact, that is exactly what the Japanese did.

They restored the emperor to power (the Meiji Restoration of 1868) and embarked upon a crash modernization program which included such amusing bits of "logic" as having all naval officers learn to eat with knife, fork and spoon because British naval officers did so and the British had a navy worthy of emulation. The result of all this was the Japanese defeat of the Russian Pacific & Baltic fleets in 1905.

Like the Ancient Romans, the Japanese too could be practical and pragmatic to a fault when need be.

Again, this has been a most enjoyable thread.

:wink:

Narukami
David Reinke
Burbank CA
Reply
#44
Quote:Quite so, and in fact, that is exactly what the Japanese did.

Well, it took them about 40 years, rather than 5, with assistance by foreign nations competing for position and influence. Also circumstances of that battle favoured the Japanese quite a bit. Still quite a remarkable feat after all. Unfortunately it was probably one of the factors that fired their feeling of racial superiority over all the other Asian nations Undecided

Quote:They restored the emperor to power (the Meiji Restoration of 1868)

Officially yes, but actually the emperor was still quite restricted in what he could do politically. For the time of the Meiji Era it was an oligarchy made up of (by origin) rather low-level samurai of a few select daimyates (han in Japanese). The emperor one might say was used as a rallying point for building a nation out of a couple of islands with many independently (and selfishly) thinking fiefdoms.

Also lets not forget the last big uprising of the samurai during that period in Kyushu, 1877, led, somewhat unwillingly it seems, by Saigo Takamori (once a member of said oligarchy himself), which was crushed by the new government with its new conscript army. Conscription at that time had become universal, i.e. including Japanese of all classes (something which was hotly debated within the government for quite some time and was one of the factors for Saigo's falling out with the other leading politicians). So you might say that the samurai were finally beaten by their own farmers and (even worse ;-) ) ) merchants.
Of course, putting it like that is something of an exaggeration/sinplification, as always many other factors contributed to the outcome, logistics, weaponry, tactics/decisions at the right or wrong time etc.

As for who would win, samurai or legionary, I'd say flipping a coin would be a valid answer for that question ;-) )
Reply
#45
here, here! most agreed.....can you imagine though WWII had the samurai not been disbanded and that tradition not broken but improved on? japan tried to rekindle that archetype when the war broke out but officers with cheapened blades running about pretending to portray what once was, well its just not the same, had the legacy continued things may have went differently. its a shame the samurai were not consigned to some jedi esque position within the new regime, but then again as far as the imperial government was concerned, the bakafu proved itself via the shoganate, not to be trusted and the platform of warfare the europeans introduced was not within what was understood to be bushido.


romans with blackpowder and gunships, now thatd have been interesting
-Jason

(GNAEVS PETRONIVS CANINVS, LEGIIAPF)


"ADIVTRIX PIA FIDELIS"
Reply


Forum Jump: