Rome vs Japan

[tlclark]

Now let's talk about armour. This scenario is dealing with samurai (not ashigaru), in which case even lower ranking samurai had full sets of do-maru, which were made of lames of steel for the body in the least, and in lower cost armours, some components were 1/4" thick hardened buffalo hide, NOT leather. And almost certainly the "do" or body armour was made of steel plates. All these plates of course were then lacquered with Urushi. This armour was provided for by their Daimyo, who had money, and could afford well built suits, even if considered munitions grade.

This sounds much more like a klibanarii outfit, which suggests that what we are really comparing is ancient warfare to medieval warfare which is a porblem. I think a byzantine equites/knight of the 11th - 13th C. would be an equal or better than a samurai.

Our imaginary legionaire is a little out of his league, like putting a person from the Napoleonic wars against someone from the modern era.

Katana are probably the finest engineered swords in the world.

Small dissent here. They have a preserved tradition that can be examined. Swords from the 16th C. do not. And that's where we would look for western equivalents. So the question is unaswerable. It's like the speculations about what would have happened if the fall of Rome hadn't happened.

There is no real way to answer this thread...lol.

Sure there is. The Romans would buy off the feudal lords. Starve the countryside, sow the fields with salt and ship the prisoners thousands of miles away to the salt mines. In time, Japanese samurai would be some of their best auxilliaries. :wink:

Travis