Rome vs Japan

[Narukami]

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