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.

[Harukage]

parkerg12 původně napsal:

if any one has ever watched the deadliest warrior (ya i know it aint the best source) the show has the japanese samuri face off against 2 others the viking which the samuri won because of the effectiveness of the bow and the sparten which crushed the samuri. the reason being is that the hoplon wielded by the the sparten was nearly impossible for the japanese katana to get through.

Only Deadliest Warrior is a ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥. "Samurai" was too clumsy for a samurai.

[=(e)= Lemonater47]

Gekko původně napsal:

=(e)= Lemonater47 původně napsal:

You get bombed conventionally enough you'll get problems. Japan's industry couldn't keep up. They were arming their civilians with spears and any new guns they did have were awful quality. In Germany they at least armed everyone with fire arms regardless of quality.

You do know that the Japanese had a massive stockpile saved up in case of invasion right? Part of the whole occupation forces Job as part of pacifying Japan was to destroy the thousands of aircraft, arms and so on that the Japanese had ready. Sure Japan was on it's knees, but it still had plenty of fight left in it, if not for the A bomb the war would have gone on for years longer...

I get the conventional bombing, but history has proven again and again that you need boots on the ground to win a war... and besides the falaise pocket (which was a mess) and a few other incidents on the Easteren front, strategic bombing wouldn't be definitive in removing a dug in army...

Okinawa was a massive wake-up call for the states...

Bombing the factories not the men on the ground. By 1945 bombing the crap out of defensive positions was no longer done. The british did a study on stalingrad finding that mass bombing makes it easier for the defenders. Thing is the british commission who conducted the 8 month long study didn't bother telling anyone else about it. It wasn't until after monte Cassino, the most bombed individual target of the war where they decided to say "you know bombing doesn't work we found out 6 months ago". The town was also just as heavily bombed making it the second most bombed target of the war. The german fallshirmjager battalions were under 10% strength and still managed to hold the town.

[Velorn]

1st. there was no army in history ever that cold match the roman army

2ndly. u guys underestimate european plate armor and overestimate yumi bows... sorry they wouldnt even scratch a 15 century knight as long as they dont hit a lucky spot like the armpit or visor slit

3. japanese metallworking was ♥♥♥♥♥ compared to european

4.medieval european armies where faaar from being unorganized

5.european knights where just as skilled with the sword as samurai where

if we pitched a 15 century european army against a 15th century japanese army the battle would go something like this:

the europeans would break the japanese formation with heavy armored infantry and crossbowmen and slaughter them but they would suffer casualties among their lightly armored infantry and ranged units due to japanese arrows

the only way i could see the japanese army win is if the europeans decide to charge the japanese mainforce(armed with yari spears and yumi bows) immediately with their heavy cavalry due to being over confident

i would instead send in my crossbows with pavise shields and my heavy infantry and keep the cavalry at the flanks for the right moment

[Fast Pooper]

Dead thread. But we may as well beat upon the horse's corpse for a while longer. Japanese warfare was highly ritualized and based on Chinese warfare from centuries before their time. The mystique of the samurai warrior aside, I doubt they could have held their own even against minor nomads on the Asian continent. Fortunately Japan is an island nation and thus they were able to develop and retain their unique culture without repeated foreign disruptions. Against European combined arms they would have been crushed summarily, even by Macedonians from 300 B.C.

[Eustruria]

No, we would lose. I mean, we did.

[Haddon]

Oh my god the historical ignorance in this thread.

The Feudal Japanese (say early Muromachi) might've been able to hold their own against some western forces of the same time, but would ultimately probably have lost both batle and war; it would not have been a sure thing. Japanese armor and weapons are not of the same quality as western variants (due mostly to lack of iron ore in Japan), but they were remarkably effective for being made out of poor quality materials, and would have stood against munitions quality European gear well enough. The 13th century Japanese were able to fend off a combined Mongol and Korean landing force without terrible difficulty, and the Mongols certainly had better (Chinese mostly) war tech.

Secondly, what period are we talking? OP said something like "I doubt it could stand against plate amor", so are we talking 14th century onward? Because the Japanese had plate as well (though more like mid 15th I believe).

Next, the samurai were mounted archers early on, and heavy cavalry later on. This idea of samurai standing around with their katanas out is absurd; most had a yari or naginata.

Lastly, this is comparing knights and samurai mostly...so like 10% of the battlefield. What would happen between men-at-arms and ashigaru? Totally different discussion there.

Oh, and a Yumi wouldn't pierce munitions quality plate by the 15th century, but early use of the Yumi (from around the 12th cent) would have sent an arrow RIGHT through the armor of just about anyone prior to plate. Also, plate would not have been on many people in a battle prior to ~1350, and even then only in small bits until ~1420

[Fast Pooper]

Samurai could hardly be classed as "heavy" cavalry compared to their European counterparts. Contemporary photographs of the later samurai show small and frail men that wouldn't look out of place as hikkikomori or herbivores in Japan today. There's a reason even the Chinese, who are not historically famous for their martial prowess, called the Japanese "dwarves."

Where is the evidence that a yumi could pierce anything, no less proper European mail and plate.

[Haddon]

Georgie původně napsal:

Samurai could hardly be classed as "heavy" cavalry compared to their European counterparts. Contemporary photographs of the later samurai show small and frail men that wouldn't look out of place as hikkikomori or herbivores in Japan today. There's a reason even the Chinese, who are not historically famous for their martial prowess, called the Japanese "dwarves."

Where is the evidence that a yumi could pierce anything, no less proper European mail and plate.

"Heavy" refers more to the size of the horse and equipment used than anything else. The samurai would have been the best fed, and most physically fit, people within the society, though probably still a fair deal smaller than their European counterparts. Size of the rider doesn't make significant difference for cavalry charges anyway. These were men in full metal armor (mostly mail, but later plate), usually with yari or naginata, on large warhorses with stirrups...that pretty much defines "heavy cavalry"

Yumi were ~100+lbs draw. That can easily pierce mail. It won't pierce plate, but almost no bows will pierce plate. But plate was rare on the battlefield until the 15th century, and still not on the majority of soldiers until the 16th; the Yumi is at latest 12th century invention. That would go through armor of the time just as easily as an English Longbow or a Mongol bow. Mail isn't particularly hard to pierce with a warbow.

[Fast Pooper]

Haddon původně napsal:

Georgie původně napsal:

Samurai could hardly be classed as "heavy" cavalry compared to their European counterparts. Contemporary photographs of the later samurai show small and frail men that wouldn't look out of place as hikkikomori or herbivores in Japan today. There's a reason even the Chinese, who are not historically famous for their martial prowess, called the Japanese "dwarves."

Where is the evidence that a yumi could pierce anything, no less proper European mail and plate.

"Heavy" refers more to the size of the horse and equipment used than anything else. The samurai would have been the best fed, and most physically fit, people within the society, though probably still a fair deal smaller than their European counterparts. Size of the rider doesn't make significant difference for cavalry charges anyway. These were men in full metal armor (mostly mail, but later plate), usually with yari or naginata, on large warhorses with stirrups...that pretty much defines "heavy cavalry"

Yumi were ~100+lbs draw. That can easily pierce mail. It won't pierce plate, but almost no bows will pierce plate. But plate was rare on the battlefield until the 15th century, and still not on the majority of soldiers until the 16th; the Yumi is at latest 12th century invention. That would go through armor of the time just as easily as an English Longbow or a Mongol bow. Mail isn't particularly hard to pierce with a warbow.

I know what "heavy" means with regards that. My jokingly made point is if the miniscule samurai were the cream of the crop, I wouldn't have much hope for the lowly ashigaru. And no, plate-armored samurai are a thing of your video games and anime. The plate armor cuirass was introduced by Western traders and was not widely adopted. It is in no way comparable to full-plate armor. Large horses? Maybe compared to the tiny men. Where is the proof for the 100 lb yumi? No such examples exist and modern versions are only capable of 30 lb at an overlarge size already. I see no definitive proof for your assumptions of Japanese parity any more than there is definitive proof that they would have been utterly destroyed. It is a matter of speculation. I don't think you can claim anyone is more ignorant than you are.

[Haddon]

The fact that you think the Chinese are "not historically known for their martial prowess" shows you clearly have little clue what you are talking about.

" Most war yumi that I have found have a draw weight of about 85-90 lbs. " On historum.com. We have similar from wikipedia, though I couldn't find the source it suggested with some search.

"modern versions are only capable of 30 lb at an overlarge size already." Modern examples are not war bows, they are for sport. And they are the same size as the old yumi; the size isn't what gives it strength. Again, you clearly don't have a clue what you are talking about.

The O-Yoroi had a plate chest piece (the cuirass), and mail around the rest of it. Centuries before the European traders. Tatame is also plates, either connected together like a coat-of-plates, or attached to mail, though that one is arguably later than the Portuguese. The Do-maru is also plate. You are correct that suits of full plate, equivalent to 15th century Europe, were from European contact, but you are wrong that they "were not widely adopted". Hell yes they were, they worked incredibly well!

"I don't think you can claim anyone is more ignorant than you are."

Oh yes, I can. You are clearly ignorant on the sbuject. I am far from an expert on it, and you are apparently well below my level.

[Fast Pooper]

Haddon původně napsal:

The fact that you think the Chinese are "not historically known for their martial prowess" shows you clearly have little clue what you are talking about.

" Most war yumi that I have found have a draw weight of about 85-90 lbs. " On historum.com. We have similar from wikipedia, though I couldn't find the source it suggested with some search.

"modern versions are only capable of 30 lb at an overlarge size already." Modern examples are not war bows, they are for sport. And they are the same size as the old yumi; the size isn't what gives it strength. Again, you clearly don't have a clue what you are talking about.

The O-Yoroi had a plate chest piece (the cuirass), and mail around the rest of it. Centuries before the European traders. Tatame is also plates, either connected together like a coat-of-plates, or attached to mail, though that one is arguably later than the Portuguese. The Do-maru is also plate. You are correct that suits of full plate, equivalent to 15th century Europe, were from European contact, but you are wrong that they "were not widely adopted". Hell yes they were, they worked incredibly well!

"I don't think you can claim anyone is more ignorant than you are."

Oh yes, I can. You are clearly ignorant on the sbuject. I am far from an expert on it, and you are apparently well below my level.

No proof except some tangential references to forum discussions which are likely similarly well-attested. As I thought. Length is very much a factor in a bow's strength. It's simple physics. The fact that modern versions are sporting makes does not change the fact that one cannot simply triple the strength of such a design without modern materials. The armor you are referring to is lamellar, not comparable to European plate armour at all. And there are no examples of full-plate "samurai armor" whatsoever. Japanese metallurgy was simply incapable of it.

The Chinese were and are most certainly not capable of waging decisive warfare in the vein of the European model at all. Like the Japanese, they do well to fight amongst each other and lesser examples of their ilk, but when faced with foes weaned on blood instead of tofu they are forced to change their entire way of life. The Japanese had the advantage of being geographically isolated, if not they would probably have been forced to wear ponytails by simple herders like their Chinese cousins.

You and others like you can reinforce each other's notions all you like on the forums, but that doesn't actually mean you know and can show anything.

[Haddon]

Georgie původně napsal:

Haddon původně napsal:

The fact that you think the Chinese are "not historically known for their martial prowess" shows you clearly have little clue what you are talking about.

" Most war yumi that I have found have a draw weight of about 85-90 lbs. " On historum.com. We have similar from wikipedia, though I couldn't find the source it suggested with some search.

"modern versions are only capable of 30 lb at an overlarge size already." Modern examples are not war bows, they are for sport. And they are the same size as the old yumi; the size isn't what gives it strength. Again, you clearly don't have a clue what you are talking about.

The O-Yoroi had a plate chest piece (the cuirass), and mail around the rest of it. Centuries before the European traders. Tatame is also plates, either connected together like a coat-of-plates, or attached to mail, though that one is arguably later than the Portuguese. The Do-maru is also plate. You are correct that suits of full plate, equivalent to 15th century Europe, were from European contact, but you are wrong that they "were not widely adopted". Hell yes they were, they worked incredibly well!

"I don't think you can claim anyone is more ignorant than you are."

Oh yes, I can. You are clearly ignorant on the sbuject. I am far from an expert on it, and you are apparently well below my level.

No proof except some tangential references to forum discussions which are likely similarly well-attested. As I thought. Length is very much a factor in a bow's strength. It's simple physics. The fact that modern versions are sporting makes does not change the fact that one cannot simply triple the strength of such a design without modern materials. The armor you are referring to is lamellar, not comparable to European plate armour at all. And there are no examples of full-plate "samurai armor" whatsoever. Japanese metallurgy was simply incapable of it.

The Chinese were and are most certainly not capable of waging decisive warfare in the vein of the European model at all. Like the Japanese, they do well to fight amongst each other and lesser examples of their ilk, but when faced with foes weaned on blood instead of tofu they are forced to change their entire way of life. The Japanese had the advantage of being geographically isolated, if not they would probably have been forced to wear ponytails by simple herders like their Chinese cousins.

You and others like you can reinforce each other's notions all you like on the forums, but that doesn't actually mean you know and can show anything.

You...you just called plate armor lamellar...do you have any idea what lames are? Small squares, usually folded over to "laminate" something, are not plates. Like, what the difference between a Roman Segmentata and Laminata? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tatami_(Japanese_armour)#/media/File:Tatami_gusoku_Met_14.100.538_n2.jpg These are not lames.
http://antique-4-sale.com/images/motorcycle_for_sale/3081/samurai-ashigaru-plate-and-mail-armor-tatami-do-dou-edo-original-3081-3.jpg Also not lames.

Also, laminar is usually supposed to be leather, rather than metal, because with such small, almost inter-locking bits of metal, you are better served just making scale armor.

I have a 6' English Longbow right behind me. It is a 32#. Right beside it, I have a 6' recurve bow. It is a 70#. It is not the size, it is the shape and material. You can use the exact same materials (Oak, Ash, Yew, Bamboo, whatever you want) to make a wide variety of weights. By thickening the bow, shaping the bow to recurve, making the bow asymmetrical and more. You don't know physics any better than you do history.

Edit: So I just re-read your post, and having not read the bit about China previously, I didn't mention it, but now I will; I see, you aren't actually comparing things logically, you are just an ignorant racist. Would have saved us a lot of time if you'd started with that racist ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥, so I would know not to bother.

[Fast Pooper]

Haddon původně napsal:

Georgie původně napsal:

No proof except some tangential references to forum discussions which are likely similarly well-attested. As I thought. Length is very much a factor in a bow's strength. It's simple physics. The fact that modern versions are sporting makes does not change the fact that one cannot simply triple the strength of such a design without modern materials. The armor you are referring to is lamellar, not comparable to European plate armour at all. And there are no examples of full-plate "samurai armor" whatsoever. Japanese metallurgy was simply incapable of it.

The Chinese were and are most certainly not capable of waging decisive warfare in the vein of the European model at all. Like the Japanese, they do well to fight amongst each other and lesser examples of their ilk, but when faced with foes weaned on blood instead of tofu they are forced to change their entire way of life. The Japanese had the advantage of being geographically isolated, if not they would probably have been forced to wear ponytails by simple herders like their Chinese cousins.

You and others like you can reinforce each other's notions all you like on the forums, but that doesn't actually mean you know and can show anything.

You...you just called plate armor lamellar...do you have any idea what lames are? Small squares, usually folded over to "laminate" something, are not plates. Like, what the difference between a Roman Segmentata and Laminata? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tatami_(Japanese_armour)#/media/File:Tatami_gusoku_Met_14.100.538_n2.jpg These are not lames.
http://antique-4-sale.com/images/motorcycle_for_sale/3081/samurai-ashigaru-plate-and-mail-armor-tatami-do-dou-edo-original-3081-3.jpg Also not lames.

Also, laminar is usually supposed to be leather, rather than metal, because with such small, almost inter-locking bits of metal, you are better served just making scale armor.

I have a 6' English Longbow right behind me. It is a 32#. Right beside it, I have a 6' recurve bow. It is a 70#. It is not the size, it is the shape and material. You can use the exact same materials (Oak, Ash, Yew, Bamboo, whatever you want) to make a wide variety of weights. By thickening the bow, shaping the bow to recurve, making the bow asymmetrical and more. You don't know physics any better than you do history.

Edit: So I just re-read your post, and having not read the bit about China previously, I didn't mention it, but now I will; I see, you aren't actually comparing things logically, you are just an ignorant racist. Would have saved us a lot of time if you'd started with that racist ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥, so I would know not to bother.

That's not plate armor. Whether it's lamellar may be debatable, but it is not the plate we are speaking of. The reason they couldn't make full-plate is because with their techniques the whole plate would be weaker than a bunch stitched together.

Depictions of the yumi don't show that it is any thicker than the ones that are known to draw 30 lb today. I'd say you'd have to have some proof to claim that they consistently drew 100 lb back then beyond, well, they could have. In this case the could have is itself in question.

Anyway, I don't see why you are claiming racism on a board about a video game based on history. Obviously there were winners and losers back then. It is not a matter of who is the better race when one wins out in war and one does not. No one could claim the Mongolian nomads are the greatest race in the world because they were excellent at massacring their enemies. Some races are proficient at war, some are not. It isn't a big deal.

[Haddon]

Georgie původně napsal:

Haddon původně napsal:

You...you just called plate armor lamellar...do you have any idea what lames are? Small squares, usually folded over to "laminate" something, are not plates. Like, what the difference between a Roman Segmentata and Laminata? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tatami_(Japanese_armour)#/media/File:Tatami_gusoku_Met_14.100.538_n2.jpg These are not lames.
http://antique-4-sale.com/images/motorcycle_for_sale/3081/samurai-ashigaru-plate-and-mail-armor-tatami-do-dou-edo-original-3081-3.jpg Also not lames.

Also, laminar is usually supposed to be leather, rather than metal, because with such small, almost inter-locking bits of metal, you are better served just making scale armor.

I have a 6' English Longbow right behind me. It is a 32#. Right beside it, I have a 6' recurve bow. It is a 70#. It is not the size, it is the shape and material. You can use the exact same materials (Oak, Ash, Yew, Bamboo, whatever you want) to make a wide variety of weights. By thickening the bow, shaping the bow to recurve, making the bow asymmetrical and more. You don't know physics any better than you do history.

Edit: So I just re-read your post, and having not read the bit about China previously, I didn't mention it, but now I will; I see, you aren't actually comparing things logically, you are just an ignorant racist. Would have saved us a lot of time if you'd started with that racist ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥, so I would know not to bother.

That's not plate armor. Whether it's lamellar may be debatable, but it is not the plate we are speaking of. The reason they couldn't make full-plate is because with their techniques the whole plate would be weaker than a bunch stitched together.

Depictions of the yumi don't show that it is any thicker than the ones that are known to draw 30 lb today. I'd say you'd have to have some proof to claim that they consistently drew 100 lb back then beyond, well, they could have. In this case the could have is itself in question.

Anyway, I don't see why you are claiming racism on a board about a video game based on history. Obviously there were winners and losers back then. It is not a matter of who is the better race when one wins out in war and one does not. No one could claim the Mongolian nomads are the greatest race in the world because they were excellent at massacring their enemies. Some races are proficient at war, some are not. It isn't a big deal.

Yes, that is plate armor. It is armor, made of plates. It isn't a suit of plate, but it is plate, just like segmentata. It is not debatable whether it is lamellar; it isn't made of lames.

A difference in width of the spine of the bow of 1/8th of an inch can increase draw weight significantly. The difference is physically tiny; it would not be depicted in any way. Nobody would even bother using a 30# bow in war, that wouldn't even pierce low quality mail with a bodkin unless at really close range, because 30# IS NOT a war bow. And "whether they could have" is NOT in question by any historian educated on the subject. Maybe 100# would be impossible for them to make in 1250, but by the end of the samurai? Like, that isn't even 200 years ago dude.

Lastly, the racism is your repeated "they are tiny and weak" comments, and the "weened on blood instead of tofu (you know tofu is almost pure protein, right?)" The medieval Japanese were shorter than medieval Europeans, but not by much; the average European height didn't get over 5'6" until last century.

[Werecat101]

this is a pointless argument as the medival period armies never met we will never know who would win. the fighing styles and tactics are vastly different and based on completely different cultural backgrounds, its like saying would a Polar bear beat a Tiger in a straight fight in the wild, It will never happen so its a pointless debate.