Rome vs Japan

[john m roberts]

A common assumption here seems to be that Roman army vs. Japanese army = legionary vs. samurai. In practice, nobody fought a legionary. they fought a legion or, more often, several legions with attached auxiliaries. An army is a machine and you fight the machine. Individual components are replaceable. A great advantage the legions had over their enemies was their system of relieving the men at the front every few minutes, so they always had fresh, rested troops on the front line. Did Japan ever have such a system?
Another problem is people seem to assume that, if Roman equipment had vulnerabilities, these would remain constant. We know that Romans were always ready to adapt their gear according to circumstances. Thus they added cross-braces to their helmets when these proved vulnerable to the falx, likewise with greaves and manicae. If in the first fight katanas split scuta, by the second the scuta would have a thick iron reinforcing bar across its top. If the katana proved to be decisively superior, the legions would have adopted the katana, just as they adopted the gladius, once the weapon of their enemies. In fact, almost all their gear was adopted from their enemies.
What made Roman armies formidable was organization, discipline and ability to adapt. I'd put my money on the legions, though it would be a tough fight.