07-24-2006, 08:03 PM
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
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
David Reinke
Burbank CA
Burbank CA
