Could the japanese culture stand a chance against european and asian warfare?

[VoiD]

Just wondering, I'm not a history buff and I don't know much about real, practical warfare so correct me if I'm wrong.

But I read that the japanese used shields long ago and decided to retire them in favor of the kinds of weapons they used, whatever the reasons may be I can't imagine a situation in which having a shielded front line wouldn't be useful to any culture, even if they had some 2h warriors those shouldn't be leading the charge taking arrows to their face before they even got to combat.

On top of that their armor looks fairly light but I doubt it could stand against european medieval plate armor either.

I mean, sure they had a warrior culture and tradition but they weren't the only warrior culture in the world that began military training at an early age as a way of life either, I just can't see anything going for the japanese besides the "coolness factor" of samurai.

[Gen. Butler]

Well, I believe the Japanses gave up on sheilds in favor of the Yari which is a long spear. This is pretty much what the european armies did when they switched to pikes but much later in history. A yari/pike would/could be placed with the blunt end in the ground, usually with the wielders foot on it, and then angled forward at 30 degrees or so. A 3 or 4 deep wall of these is much more damaging to mounted troops than a sheild but was also more or less like wading through barbed wire for infantry.

In both cultures, these weapons were used to protect archers, and later musketmen, who would pick off those struglling amongst the spears. Early combined arms doctrine! Interestingly, or oddly, the sort of very long spear the Greeks are famous for wasn't used this way. Instead, they bore it overhead with both hands or at waist height with the pole basically straight as a stabby weapon. It is also said that the Greeks, who used up to 26 ft long polearms, got a fair amount of arrow protection just fram having the spare ranks in the rear aim them up over the front rows heads. In fact, the Japanese used it at waist height also against infantry but still pretty much let the opponent impale himself.

[Karl]

Originally posted by Voidian:

Just wondering, I'm not a history buff and I don't know much about real, practical warfare so correct me if I'm wrong.

But I read that the japanese used shields long ago and decided to retire them in favor of the kinds of weapons they used, whatever the reasons may be I can't imagine a situation in which having a shielded front line wouldn't be useful to any culture, even if they had some 2h warriors those shouldn't be leading the charge taking arrows to their face before they even got to combat.

On top of that their armor looks fairly light but I doubt it could stand against european medieval plate armor either.

I mean, sure they had a warrior culture and tradition but they weren't the only warrior culture in the world that began military training at an early age as a way of life either, I just can't see anything going for the japanese besides the "coolness factor" of samurai.

The true and undeniable answer would be, no, they couldn't. European warfare was much more advanced, and the way they crafted their armor and especially weapons were just so much ahead compared to the Japanese ones. The training of knights and soldiery should not be underestimated either on the European side

[Gekko]

Originally posted by Mr.Bear:

Originally posted by Voidian:

Just wondering, I'm not a history buff and I don't know much about real, practical warfare so correct me if I'm wrong.

But I read that the japanese used shields long ago and decided to retire them in favor of the kinds of weapons they used, whatever the reasons may be I can't imagine a situation in which having a shielded front line wouldn't be useful to any culture, even if they had some 2h warriors those shouldn't be leading the charge taking arrows to their face before they even got to combat.

On top of that their armor looks fairly light but I doubt it could stand against european medieval plate armor either.

I mean, sure they had a warrior culture and tradition but they weren't the only warrior culture in the world that began military training at an early age as a way of life either, I just can't see anything going for the japanese besides the "coolness factor" of samurai.

The true and undeniable answer would be, no, they couldn't. European warfare was much more advanced, and the way they crafted their armor and especially weapons were just so much ahead compared to the Japanese ones. The training of knights and soldiery should not be underestimated either on the European side

This, also Japanese, or Samurai culture was to duel 1 on 1, even on the battlefield. Where European was a simple mass of brutal force. While the Japanese fighting style, on 1 to 1 might be superior with it's finesse it just wouldn't be brutal enough.

[Carrier002]

The Japanese may have abandoned the traditional shield, but they did go into battle shielded. Thats what the large shoulder mats on the side of their armor was for, to act as a shield.

[molotovsoda vic]

I remember going to a museum in DC that had collection of armor and weapons from Europe and Asia progressing by dates, on the left side it had European stuff on the right mostly Japanese armor and weapons.
Looking at 2 collections side by side and century by century it was very clear that Japan was hundreds of years behind almost in every way. The craftsmanship, effectiveness, metal work, technology. I was rather surprised how by crude and clunky Japanese stuff looked pre 15th century.

[Nick Naughty]

If samurai did appear they would probably be very scarey, like fighting demons.

[Carrier002]

Originally posted by Nick Naughty:

If samurai did appear they would probably be very scarey, like fighting demons.

Demons that would imiediately be run down by heavy horse

[Chonobataar]

Did you mean during this era? or later on (during the medieval period). If you meant around these times then I think the Japanese civilisation would have been a match for a european, Europeans (except Rome) were certainly not advanced. Japanese weaponry is meant specifically for duelling, but they have had plenty of civil wars so I'm pretty sure they know how to fight battles with their kind of weapons.

Europeans at this time were typical barbarians, scavenged armor, some kind of forged weapon (if not looted) and brutish unorganized offensive tactics and guerilla warfare. Whereas Japanese were a sophisticated civilization due to China being close by and had access to Chinese technology and culture. Of course they adapted it to their own liking and eventually formed the tenants of Bushido and their own culture.

[=(e)= Lemonater47]

Japanese armour is actually rather effective at blocking or severly reducing the damage of arrows. It was still pretty heavy duty stuff not much lighter than medieval plate armour.

Medieval Europe also dropped shields however much later. Full plate wrmour made that possible. Chainmail couldn't stop arrows. Japanese armour has chainmail in it but a bunch of other stuff even plates. I can't remeber how it's made exactly. Whatever combination they used and how it was designed on the body meant it was very good against arrows and allowed almost full mobility. They made the switch first.


Japanese weapkns could also defeat japanese armour. The Yari spear could punch straight through it. And the katana could inflict quite a bit of damage against it. Their weapons were still practical.

Mainland Europe in the time of plate armour still used the sword. Which was completely impractical. It was a symbolic weapon. The chivalric code was strong in Europe. MAAs cavalry charges were quite often the decider of battles back then. If they didn't work they slogged it out as infantry bashing each other mostly with swords. By the end of the battle your sword was ruined. The katana would also get ruined against plate armour. However the katana is the same weight as a medieval two handed longsword. Having them slightly blunt was actually benificial. Since everyone was using the lance and the sword no one had the advantage of equipment. Except the English.

The English were the exception in Europe. Their main drawback was actually having a low population. The population of England was very low compared to most mainland nations. However by the late medieval period Wales was under English control.
But the English were practical people. Pretty much the first to ditch the feudal military system for a contract military system. Their Knights used weapons great for killing armoured Knights. Peasants were allowed to join English ranks and they made the majority of English armies. They had archers. They favoured heavy infantry equipemed with poleaxes and bills. Small English forces could inflict massive amounts if casualties.



Japanese nobles practiced a lot more than european noboes. In Medieval Europe as a nobleman you didn't actually expect to die. The middle class was usually the lowest class to be in many armies. And they were servants or other retainers of a nobleman. If you were defeated in battle you were expected to be captured and ransomed. Medieval knights didn't try to kill their opponent. They tried to incapacitate them. As you can't make money off of them dead.

In Japan it was kill or be killed. If you were defeated you expected to be executed. If you didn't commit suicide first. If you ran you were still probably gonna be executed but by your own side instead. They had to train. Train hard. Or die.


Japan againt medieval europe. Even against mainland Europe I think europe wouod still win. As they would have the advantage in equipment. Though it would be close. As the yari spear could easily penatrate a Knights breastplate. It's only 2mm thick. But the japanese samurai wouldn't be able to withstand a cavalry charge. Then again all samurai were trained with the bow and the yumi bow was an excellent bow. Very very close but I think medieval Europe has the edge. Against the English they wouldn't stand a chance.

But you have to realise that the Japanese practiced in the art of killing rather than in the art of having a fight and making lots of money out of it. The Japanese were still rather practical people. If the cultures had clashed significantly Japan would of adapted very fast. Adopting weapons far better against plate armour. Which they did have but just weren't as popular as the katana which was already very good against japanese armour. A japanese Samurai was supposed to be experianced with as many weapons as possible. The Japanese would have probably lost the initial battles of a campaign, adapted and end up having a successful counter offensive.

This is of course comparing Europe and Japan in the 15th century.

[Swimming Samurai]

Well it really depends on what era your talking about (and what country in EU)

No doubt in my mind Europe would have had a very hard time durring the 900-1300. The Knights of course where trained from early age, and have a powerfull and deadly charge, but keep in mind they where not in full plate armor yet. And of course Japanese Samurais where mostly Horse archers at this time, and where still effective in melee. This can be seen when the Samurais boarded Mongolian/Sino ships when they invaded Japan.

Now if your talking about the 1500-1600, that is kinda diffrent. Allthough Japanese have adopted and even "inprove" there matchlocks into light ones. There naval power was MUCH more weaker compair to Europe. There ships and crew where design and trained for melee combat.

Now if you where to look at the weapons and compair them to Japanese and European ones they are sometimes similar. For the early Samurais the Yari was not common yet, but the Naginata and Yumi power where common. Compairing a Naginata to a Glave they are pretty similar. I dont know this one for sure but i heard that Naginata can also hurt Plate armor unlike katanas. The Yari spear can easily compair it self to Pikes, Yaris also have many designs too. Lastly the Katana, a blade that was perfect in beuty. But the main problem is that they have a hard time cutting through armor. This is why Durring the Sengoku era and before, Katanas where a 2nd weapon to use because of its size and power compair to others.

Originally posted by SherShahSuri:

Europeans at this time were typical barbarians, scavenged armor, some kind of forged weapon (if not looted) and brutish unorganized offensive tactics and guerilla warfare. Whereas Japanese were a sophisticated civilization due to China being close by and had access to Chinese technology and culture. Of course they adapted it to their own liking and eventually formed the tenants of Bushido and their own culture.

Dont get me wrong but Japanese where also typical barbarians too. They where sick brutal warriors durring the Sengoku era and clearly express that in the Imjin war against Korea. The Japanese Collected heads as trophies and proof of a kill, burn down forest to smoke out there enemys and of course raid and pillage there own lands and Korea. Perhaps the world is the same? Only problem i find wrong with your clames is that Europeans where unorganized....thats something you should check on.

[Chonobataar]

Originally posted by Obata Clan:

Well it really depends on what era your talking about (and what country in EU)

No doubt in my mind Europe would have had a very hard time durring the 900-1300. The Knights of course where trained from early age, and have a powerfull and deadly charge, but keep in mind they where not in full plate armor yet. And of course Japanese Samurais where mostly Horse archers at this time, and where still effective in melee. This can be seen when the Samurais boarded Mongolian/Sino ships when they invaded Japan.

Now if your talking about the 1500-1600, that is kinda diffrent. Allthough Japanese have adopted and even "inprove" there matchlocks into light ones. There naval power was MUCH more weaker compair to Europe. There ships and crew where design and trained for melee combat.

Now if you where to look at the weapons and compair them to Japanese and European ones they are sometimes similar. For the early Samurais the Yari was not common yet, but the Naginata and Yumi power where common. Compairing a Naginata to a Glave they are pretty similar. I dont know this one for sure but i heard that Naginata can also hurt Plate armor unlike katanas. The Yari spear can easily compair it self to Pikes, Yaris also have many designs too. Lastly the Katana, a blade that was perfect in beuty. But the main problem is that they have a hard time cutting through armor. This is why Durring the Sengoku era and before, Katanas where a 2nd weapon to use because of its size and power compair to others.

Originally posted by SherShahSuri:

Europeans at this time were typical barbarians, scavenged armor, some kind of forged weapon (if not looted) and brutish unorganized offensive tactics and guerilla warfare. Whereas Japanese were a sophisticated civilization due to China being close by and had access to Chinese technology and culture. Of course they adapted it to their own liking and eventually formed the tenants of Bushido and their own culture.

Dont get me wrong but Japanese where also typical barbarians too. They where sick brutal warriors durring the Sengoku era and clearly express that in the Imjin war against Korea. The Japanese Collected heads as trophies and proof of a kill, burn down forest to smoke out there enemys and of course raid and pillage there own lands and Korea. Perhaps the world is the same? Only problem i find wrong with your clames is that Europeans where unorganized....thats something you should check on.

That's not what I meant by barbarian... I meant that Europeans were a people that lived in forests, caves and villages, they lived barbarian lives and were not sophisticated in any way. Japanese were barbaric in the sense of the crimes they comitted during and after battle, but they had an honor-based law that EVERYONE knew and many followed. Their ideals are similar to Pashtunwali and so they draw sophistication and are able to live in order.

European barbarians were unorganised and never had any formal training (unless it was part of the Roman legions). They never used troop formations and were very splintered (as many europeans fought in tribes or clans, rarely as a whole). The only time they were decently organised is when they worked together to ambush a larger enemy. But on the battlefield, they were pretty much fail.

[Dawarf]

Originally posted by SherShahSuri:

That's not what I meant by barbarian... I meant that Europeans were a people that lived in forests, caves and villages, they lived barbarian lives and were not sophisticated in any way.

European barbarians were unorganised and never had any formal training (unless it was part of the Roman legions). They never used troop formations and were very splintered (as many europeans fought in tribes or clans, rarely as a whole). The only time they were decently organised is when they worked together to ambush a larger enemy. But on the battlefield, they were pretty much fail.

(Sorry if my reply failed dont use steam forums that often)
What excactly do you mean the europeans were barbarians?
Sure if we're talking BC or dark ages yeah you are correct. But if we are talking 900-1600AD the europeans got their ♥♥♥♥ back together.

The renaissance brought great pieces of art, more innovation in technology(though supressed by the church)

And for being unorganiased on the battlefield i would like to point to the landsknechts tercios and swiss pikemen.

[Swimming Samurai]

Originally posted by SherShahSuri:

That's not what I meant by barbarian... I meant that Europeans were a people that lived in forests, caves and villages, they lived barbarian lives and were not sophisticated in any way. Japanese were barbaric in the sense of the crimes they comitted during and after battle, but they had an honor-based law that EVERYONE knew and many followed. Their ideals are similar to Pashtunwali and so they draw sophistication and are able to live in order.

European barbarians were unorganised and never had any formal training (unless it was part of the Roman legions). They never used troop formations and were very splintered (as many europeans fought in tribes or clans, rarely as a whole). The only time they were decently organised is when they worked together to ambush a larger enemy. But on the battlefield, they were pretty much fail.

Perhaps you should read on the Sengoku era and some before it too. Lots of dity moves/fighting guerilla fighting. The Bushido honor stuff your thinking about was finished in the Edo per (1600-1850s) but there was little to no wars tho. Anything before it bushido is just a something Samurais knew like Chivalry to Knights.

Woah there, we are talking about the Medieval times. Hell even durring the roman times the Germanic "barbarians" where allready doing formations such as wedge formations and phalanxes. In the medieval times, war is no game it was real and they must find a real way to combat. Cavalry charges from Knights are perhaps one of the most powerfull strikes you can ever see in combat. But even Europeans where able to combat that because they do have formal training (so long as they are not levied peasants).

As for people liveing in Caves and forest....thats everyone in the world such as Africans, India, Chinese and Japanese along with small villages and it was common too. If your thinking about big citys then non of that was around in japan till much much later in the 1400, pretty late if you ask me.

Back to the point if Europeans fought against the Japanese i have no doubt in my mind that Europeans can win mainly because of the Knights. Anything ealier and it could be an intresting set up.

Side note but....try to remeber that everyone in the world is kinda the same in there own way and is no such thing as a lesser people, culture.

[=(e)= Lemonater47]

Yes japanese weren't big on cavalry. Their cavalry were actually war ponies. So much smaller animals. A Europeans cavalry charge would have been devastating.

But as I said the Japanese adapted whereas most Europeans did not. Not to mention the Yumi how and the fact the Japanese samurai was well trained in the yari spear. Charging headlong into a wall of spears while under fire from powerful bows doesnt sound good. Not to mention these yari equipped samurai probably would of had a katana as well. The charge would of been made less effective by the hail of arrows and the spears would of stopped the charge dead. The first two rows of japanese infantry would be knocked down but they would of brought down many of the charging cavalry. Meaning the cavalry behind would just be charging straight into corpses. So the cavalry charge wouldn't be that effective.

The Japanese probably would have turned out a bit like the English in military tactics. Though still using a fuedal system which was exactly like medieval Europe. The warlord called upon the noboes to fight just as the European king called upon his noboes to fight. War was a symbolic thing in Europe. With generally low casualty rates. Japanese warfare had much higher casualty rates.

[Nick Naughty]

Originally posted by Loris Putzolu:

Originally posted by Nick Naughty:

If samurai did appear they would probably be very scarey, like fighting demons.

Why? Because of the face mask? Also in Europe some eltie soldiers had masks. Even the Standard Bearers in the Roman Army had face masks

Its just samurai I quite unique, the armour and face mask along with weapons, the whole army would be a scarey sight. I suppose like army of immortals, only immortals won't be that plentyful.

But the only thing I'm not sure about is the era match, whether the japanese at the time say of 400 were armoured samurai, or the use of ninjas.