Question who would win?

[instantmilkshake]

Lets say a mediaval time army vs. a japanes army of that time, all with about the same number and stength and capable generals. Who would win?

[TuNeRsHaRk]

the japs theyd use there stealthy ninja capabilities to take out the opposing force

[[AFSOC]]

Japan, because they know martial arts and Japanese Samurai have the strongest STEEL

[instantmilkshake]

tactic wise, I guess the Japanese would be more disciplined right? Sinced that they were not afraid of dying. Was there ever a battle in history like this?

[mack pl]

tactic wise, I guess the Japanese would be more disciplined right? Sinced that they were not afraid of dying. Was there ever a battle in history like this?

you mean between Europeans and Japans at medieval times?

No. Im not sure but IIRC first war between Japan and European country, was in 1904(5) with Russia(Korea, Port Arthur , Cushima, etc.)....Japan won.

anyway, IMO Europeans would win this battle(medieval time). But since this never hapenned, we can only guessing :lol:

[instantmilkshake]

tactic wise, I guess the Japanese would be more disciplined right? Sinced that they were not afraid of dying. Was there ever a battle in history like this?

you mean between Europeans and Japans at medieval times?

No. Im not sure but IIRC first war between Japan and European country, was in 1904(5) with Russia(Korea, Port Arthur , Cushima, etc.)....Japan won.

anyway, IMO Europeans would win this battle(medieval time). But since this never hapenned, we can only guessing :lol:

just curious why do you think Europeans would win?

[mack pl]

just curious why do you think Europeans would win?

well, Ive never liked medieval history, but I would say that European tactic was better...they fought in large groups(heavy cavalry, sometimes infantry)...Japans prefered to fight one warrior vs one warrior(no team cooperation in same scale as Europeans).....but dont quote me....I prefer modern history :lol:

[instantmilkshake]

just curious why do you think Europeans would win?

well, Ive never liked medieval history, but I would say that European tactic was better...they fought in large groups(heavy cavalry, sometimes infantry)...Japans prefered to fight one warrior vs one warrior(no team cooperation in same scale as Europeans).....but dont quote me....I prefer modern history :lol:

Well I'm no history guy myself but from watching movies and such, it looked like Japanese armies also fought in formation and such.

[Durandal]

European army...

Heavy shock cavalry and better bows.

My opinion only, this comparison has danced around for years. The discussion is usually participated in by realists and those that think the Japanese were magical.

Very few Japanese had Good steel. The Samurai sword was a rare item as were ninja ( :D ). Japan suffered just as much as any nation from inept leadership and a corrupt upper class.

Most of the Japanese armies were foot soldiers with poor training at best.

Europeans were using steel armor and had real horses opposed to the crapful ponies the Japanese had. It also depends on the period you pull the armies from. By late period, Crossbows were in full swing along with the long bows. This is also true with the Japanese, since there are comparable periods where a chunk their troops have bamboo spears, no armor (plate, ring, scale, or chain).

The Japanese are, in my opinion, fairly overrated. We see movies, like the last Samurai, that make them look honorable and gallant, but most were slave owners, with little honor, that stole from the people and fed the rich. Few were military masters...more likely romanticized thugs. that is not to say that there weren't those that practiced Bushido and represented the glory of most think of when we discuss topics like this, but they were not the majority at all.

[instantmilkshake]

European army...

Heavy shock cavalry and better bows.

My opinion only, this comparison has danced around for years. The discussion is usually participated in by realists and those that think the Japanese were magical.

Very few Japanese had Good steel. The Samurai sword was a rare item as were ninja ( :D ). Japan suffered just as much as any nation from inept leadership and a corrupt upper class.

Most of the Japanese armies were foot soldiers with poor training at best.

Europeans were using steel armor and had real horses opposed to the crapful ponies the Japanese had. It also depends on the period you pull the armies from. By late period, Crossbows were in full swing along with the long bows. This is also true with the Japanese, since there are comparable periods where a chunk their troops have bamboo spears, no armor (plate, ring, scale, or chain).

The Japanese are, in my opinion, fairly overrated. We see movies, like the last Samurai, that make them look honorable and gallant, but most were slave owners, with little honor, that stole from the people and fed the rich. Few were military masters...more likely romanticized thugs. that is not to say that there weren't those that practiced Bushido and represented the glory of most think of when we discuss topics like this, but they were not the majority at all.

Ok thanks for clarifying this! I always wondered.

[mack pl]

very good points Durandal, thanks for your post.





Well I'm no history guy myself.

Im history teacher....but I prefer WWII, and things like that... :lol:

[DarkAngel]

Some related articles

http://www.thearma.org/essays/knightvs.htm

and http://www.thearma.org/essays/katanavs.htm

From the first article...

On the forms of warfare each side practiced:

We might also want to consider the forms of warfare each swordsman was experienced in and focused upon. The early samurai engaged in a ritualized style of warfare where individual champions might fight separate battlefield duels following established protocols, as opposed to a later mounted archery style of combat amidst pike formations of lesser foot soldiers. Their clan warfare was decidedly feudalistic yet with acquiring and honor and renown also being a goal. Skirmishing was not also uncommon and there were a few large scale military expeditions to Korea and surrounding islands. But most combat occurred in the environment of the home islands.

Whereas in contrast, knights emphasized mounted shock warfare with couched lances, and off the field a concern for chivalric and judicial duels as well as tournaments of all kinds. The Western way of war for knights was directed more at a traditional battle of annihilation as part of an overall campaign of conquest. Yet, individual challenges, whether to the death or not, were frequent. Knightly arms and armor were the result of a dynamic interaction of Latin, Celtic, and Germanic cultures as well as Turkish and Arabic influences. The environment knights fought under was extensive and diverse, ranging from the cold of Scandinavia to the deserts of the Middle East, from the plains of Western Europe to the deep forest of the East, and the swamps, fields, and mountains in between. There is also no question that athleticism, physical fitness and conditioning were integral parts of knightly chivalric virtue as considerable literary and iconographic evidence from the period testifies.

We cannot overlook the role that culture might play in this contest. Samurai warriors existed in a hierarchical and conformist culture that rewarded obedience and loyalty over individuality. Knights existed in a more complex and fluid society that emphasized self-expression with a long tradition of reliance on individual initiative. Both cultures had experience fighting against outsiders and foreigners: the Europeans encountered the Turks, Mongols, Saracens, and others; the Japanese encountered the Koreans, Chinese, Mongols, and others. Thus, in considering the historical record on cross-cultural collisions in different locations, would we want to give the edge to the more socially diverse Europeans on this?

On armour:

...A complete suit of fully articulated rigid plate-armor, which has been described as unequaled in its ingenuity and strength, was nearly resistant to sword blows and required entirely different specialized weapons to effectively defeat it. With its tempered steel and careful curved fluting it was just invulnerable to sword cuts-even, it can be surmised, those of the exceptionally sharp katana (some high-ranking 16th century samurai lords actually owned pieces of contemporary European armor, gifts and purchases which they even wore into battle -they did not prize them merely as exotica). Plate-armor for foot combat was well-balanced, maneuverable, and sometimes even made of tempered steel. It was well-suited for fighting in, and is far from the awkward, lumbering cliché presented by Hollywood. Unless you've worn accurate well-made plate of this kind, it is impossible to really know how it influenced the way a knight would move.

Samurai dont use shields... disadvantage?:

...Katanas are powerful swords used with strong techniques, but thinking they could simply cleave through a stout Medieval shield is absurd. Even with a katana a shield cannot simply be sliced through. Medieval shields were fairly thick wood covered in leather and usually trimmed in metal. Not only that, they were highly maneuverable, making solid, shearing blows difficult. More likely, a blade would be momentarily stuck in the rim if it struck too forcefully. Unlike what is seen in the movies, or described in heroic literature, chopping into a shield’s edge can temporarily cause the sword blade to wedge into the shield for just an instant and thereby be delayed in recovering or renewing an attack (and exposing the attacker's arms to a counter-cut). Shields without metal rims were even favored for this very reason.

Kenjutsu (Japanese swordsmanship), though consisting of very effective counter-cutting actions, also has no real indigenous provisions for fighting shields. Although a skilled warrior could certainly improvise some, those unfamiliar with the formidable effectiveness and versatility of a sword and shield combination will have a hard time. The shield was not used the way typically shown in movies, video games, stage-combat, or historical role-playing organizations such as the SCA. Fighting against a Medieval shield is not simply a matter of maneuvering around it or aiming blows elsewhere. If a warrior does not really know the shield, or hasn’t faced a good shield fighter, then they cannot be expected to know how to ideally fight against it.

On swordforms... a little simplistic... those who know kendo will see that actually, there are many different schools of "Japanese swordsmanship" but there's some good stuff here all the same:

The katana is wielded in a quick-flowing manner with a torque of the grip as well as a push of the hips. Pulling a curved blade in this way makes it slice as it shears. The footwork is more linear with short quick hopping (even shuffling) steps. In contrast to the slicing slash of a curved, single-edged, Japanese blade, Medieval swords were made for hacking, shearing cuts delivered primarily from the elbow and shoulder and employing wide passing steps. The actions are larger with more fast whirling actions as the two edges are employed, the pommel alone gripped, or the hands changed to different positions on the hilt (such as placement of the thumb on the flat of the blade or upon the lip of the cross). As a straight blade it strikes more with a point-of-percussion on the first 6-8 inches of blade down from the point as opposed to the curved katana which uses more of just the first few inches. If we bring into the equation the Medieval bastard-sword with compound-hilt of side-rings and bar-guards as well as the waisted or half-grip handle using various methods of holding, this could also be a significant factor. Such hilts allow for a variety of significant one or two-hand gripping options and gives superior tip control for thrusting and edge alignment.

This is all from the first article. I didn't want to paste the whole article, Hood's new rule forbids it, so go read it. The second article more closely compares a katana with a rapier. Go check it out; it's pretty good. By the way... shouldn't this be in the History section? ;)

[saltandpepper]

The Chinese of the same period would have won.

[Durandal]

Lets say a mediaval time army vs. a japanes army of that time, all with about the same number and stength and capable generals. Who would win?

Then again, if you took a Japanese army from the same exact point in history, the Japanese would get wiped completely and converted. :)

Keep in mind the Samurai, like Oda and Nobunaga are from a completely different point in Japanese history. They would have gotten their asses kicked by a 1600's European force...

Say New Model Army versus...

New Model was fast, had pikes, quickly moving away from matchlocks, still had heavy and light cavalry, heavy and light cannon, and horse infantry (dragoons).

They would have gone through the Japanese like a scythe through wheat.

But depending on whom you speak with Medieval time spans from 5th century to the 1700s. I like to think of it as from 1000 to about the 1300s, militarily. Nothing in Japan during this point of time could match anything the Europeans or Muslims had at that same time period.

[Durandal]

The Chinese of the same period would have won.

*snort*

You've been reading way too much Wu Xia.

Edit: I always slap people around for not follow up comments with points...sooo....

By early A.D. China was starting its downward spiral into despotism and simple overall corruption and whipping boy of all almost every European nation, America, and Japan...which did not begin until the 1600's, but as a military state, China was crap...

I mean, come on, they were still using chariots in 1200. *shudder* By 1500, they were pathetic and missed the boat in developing gun powder weapons, instead, using it to scare ghosts and demons. ;)

[Seiyuuki]

Keep in mind the Samurai, like Oda and Nobunaga are from a completely different point in Japanese history. They would have gotten their asses kicked by a 1600's European force...

Is that a typo or are you referring to Oda Nobunaga as two separate person?

Samurai battles prior to the first invasion by the Mongol were more on the individual scale, with warriors challenging one and another in combat. However, when the Mongols made landfall in Japan, the first few initial contacts, the Japanese were slaughter because the Mongols saw no need for individual combat and work effectively in group. Warfares in Japan change somewhat after that, with more emphasis on large scale group combat, though challenge of one warrior to another was still prevalent. Though keep in mind that the bulk of most samurai army was made up of ashigaru, nothing more than conscripted peasants, they didn't share the same view of the whole one-on-one challenge as the ruling class samurai that was leading them.

As for the employment of cavalry, I suggest looking into the Takeda clan. They were famous during the Sengoku Period for their superb cavalry, employing them shock troops and as the situation require. That came to an end in 1575 at the Battle of Nagashino. "Slaughter at the barricades," Nobunaga set up 3,000 matchlocks in rank of three behind barricades. As the Takeda employ their cavalry against Nobunaga, they were mowed down by the successive gunfire. The Takeda basically became extinct after that.

With the introduction of firearms into Japanese warfare, the armor change somewhat. One example is Date Masamune who wore a bullet-proof armor and was rich enough to outfitted all his troops with it. European armor was also worn by some daimyo, refer to the Battle of Sekigahara, Tokugawa Ieyasu wore a European style armor.

Swordmanship wise, as the case being that the country lack an abundant in natural resources and the need to equipped the ashigaru with some sort of weapons, most "katana" were of inferior quality, mass produced. Only the ruling class of samurai were rich enough to afford those superb blade that still sharp to this day. Schoolings was also an important matter, the case is that a swordman who never received the level of schooling available to the samurai class, who is a season veteran and saw many battles and fought many foes, 99% of the time will still lose to an aristocratic samurai who has advance schooling in using the sword since he was a child. Those same schools would teach the samurai just not to cut in any place on the opponents, but to make cut in certain area not cover by the armor, the groin, neck, armpits, etc.



Enjoy the additional information, seeing that neither met each others in actual combat, you can't really accurately speculate who would win.

[ibstolidude]

tactic wise, I guess the Japanese would be more disciplined right? Sinced that they were not afraid of dying. Was there ever a battle in history like this?
stop watching japanimation
manuever warfare and the concept of mass armed conscript armies was well practiced and entrenched in Europe long before Japan.

[Para]

It's rather like asking how long is any piece of string, there are so many imponderables, No has mention Naval Power and the ability to move armies around the coast quickly to raid and move on and in doing so tearing down the countries infrastructure. I think to many people are to involved the Hollywood image of the Samurai warrior and just what he can do. Lets face the European Armies where very skilled in battle, well they never stopped fighting them and they ability to change tactics quickly. It still all revolves around that little word IF only they did this or did that and so on.

[Sayeret]

Probably the European army would win because it's more advanced with firearms and siege weapons and seemed to use better tactics than the Japanese.

Till the early 1900s Japan was pretty far behind Europe. Thats in part why the outcome of the Russo-Japanese war surprised many.

[Turbo]

both had different styles of warfare hard to compare the two

[Durandal]

Is that a typo or are you referring to Oda Nobunaga as two separate person?

Typo. Sorry for that. Didn't even catch it.

[Herrmannek]

I'm sure Japs would be dead meat after one pass of polish husars... Also history of medieval Europe is wastly falsed. There is lots of missconceptions, like(armor being cumbersome, european swords being inferior to japaneese, canon foder fighting style, "dark age" etc things). Whats is important about europen forces is that any good idea was instantly introduced into service call it "Lesson learned", but this was one of the strongest factor of european military schools. Just look how fastly european warfare developed compared to other places.

[bloddyaxe]

Actually, Evropean armies were probably even more varied in quality and tactics, weaponry etc through the middle ages than they are today. So really anything could be happening in such a fight. Its almost like who would win, medieval Africa or medieval South America?

Now if we compare 9th century Nordic warlord and pitch him against a same century Japanese daimyo (or whatever the closest equalant was called in 9th century Japan). Then we can have an interesting fight.
Similar quality swords, but the Nordics favoring Spears and Axes with a shield, while the aristo-Japanese favoring Bows while mounted on a horsie and his vassals fighting with their spears and sharp bambo sticks maybe.

Equipmentwise the Noridcs would have been unable to match the mounted archer, while being able to overwhelm the infantry, most probably.
Basicly this boils down to tactics and lay of the land.

[hughdotoh]

There wasn't much to lean on, just a period match between European Army A and Japanese Army B. How could anyone draw a conclusion from that? It would have been better if we had a better reference like say Roman legion and Han Dynasty regiment.

Try typical Spanish Tercio or English Civil War Royalist regiment vs. typical Sekigahara samurai regiment.

IMO, there would be a draw.

[usafbalad]

I know we are talking about the Japanese vs Europeans... But dont forget about the Mongols....

They invaded Eastern Europe in 1238. They swept through Russia destroying all in their path and then proceded to attack Poland and Hungary in the year 1241. The Teutonic knights were no match whatsoever against the Mongol cavalry.

The mongols would make it seem in a battle that they were retreating and then lure the enemy army into a trap and procede to murder them all with their cavalry archers.

Also when they attacked castles they liked to use germ warfare. The Mongols would take a catapault and put either dead bodies or dead animals in it and chunk it over the walls.

After they captured the castle all the people inside would be killed and they would burn the damn thing including the surrounding villages down.

Anyway, Austria was spared because Ogodei (son of Genghis Khan and the current ruler of Mongolia) had died and they retreated back to the steppes in Mongolia in December of that year.

Hoped you liked the history lesson..........I'm a nut when it comes to **** like this.

[usafbalad]

Oh yeah.... Another brief lesson....

Mongols vs. Japanese

There were two attempts at invasion of Japan.

One in 1274 and the other in 1281. These were ordered by the current khan, Kublai.

The first assault on Japan in 1274 was aborted. After a few years Kublai demands fealty of Japan but is answered with silence. He then builds a massive fleet to invade Japan (1281). He then sends his massive army across the sea to attack but then a typhoon (call Kamikaze or "divine wind" to the Japanese) hits the fleet.

Most of Kublai's 150,000 man army is drowned or killed on the beaches of Japan.

[Herrmannek]

Mongols never overrun Poland, although we've got hard beating in the heart of the country(Legnica battle, with was most important battle of the war, was failure due to tactical error, we let Tatars to regroup and strike back when our forces were scatered in chase of retreating mongols...Still we started to use parts of their tactics and countermesures right away and next mongols rides weren't so dangerous. And mind that mongols had Chan, one of the ultimate commanders and our forces didn't had any uber leader still we managed to defend somehow. Also remember that this times were wery hard for Poland from poitical POV and added a lot to our weaknes...

[usafbalad]

Yes, but Khan was dead when Poland was invaded. It was his son, Ogodei who invaded eastern Europe..[


Mongols never overrun Poland

...they murdered your armies.......and your cities.





1241: The Great Khan Ogedei died after completing the Mongol conquest of China and Korea. In April the Mongols routed the armies of Poles, Germans, and Hungarians, at Liegnitz and Mohi, within easy distance of Vienna. Only the death of Ogedei stopped their advance into Europe.
A trumpeter in Krakow, Poland, was shot through the throat by an archer as he warned the city of a fast-approaching Mongol army.



Sweeping in a northward arc past the edge of the Carpathians and into Poland, Kaidu and Baidar sacked Sandomir, defeated an army of Poles and other Slavic forces under Boleslav at Kraków on March 3, and defeated another Polish army at Chmielnik on March 18. Turning their attention back to Kraków, the Mongols seized and burned the city on March 24, then assaulted the Silesian capital of Breslau a few days later.

[usafbalad]

damnit hit quote on accident.

[ibstolidude]

Oh yeah.... Another brief lesson....

Mongols vs. Japanese

There were two attempts at invasion of Japan.

One in 1274 and the other in 1281. These were ordered by the current khan, Kublai.

The first assault on Japan in 1274 was aborted. After a few years Kublai demands fealty of Japan but is answered with silence. He then builds a massive fleet to invade Japan (1281). He then sends his massive army across the sea to attack but then a typhoon (call Kamikaze or "divine wind" to the Japanese) hits the fleet.

Most of Kublai's 150,000 man army is drowned or killed on the beaches of Japan.

In 1274 the Mongol forces actually made it into Japan. The invasion was around 30k mongol cavalry. They defeated the samurai (& small bakufu army), returning to their ships that night. A huge storm develops and sink many and forces retreat.

[mack pl]

Yes, but Khan was dead when Poland was invaded. It was his son, Ogodei who invaded eastern Europe..[


Mongols never overrun Poland

...they murdered your armies.......and your cities.


both of you are correct ;) Well, Mongols sent to Poland only small part of theirs army(the rest was sended to Hungary)...Poland wasn't primary objective for Mongols, and they didnt want to conquere our territories. BTW we can't talking about Poland, as a one country, with one army and one king. At this time, we have few independent principalities(sp.), with independent dukes. Anyway, during battle near Legnitz, our army was under command of one of Polish prince(Henryk)...he was Silesian duke. During battle he had problems with communication between him, and other Polish contingents(from Kraków for example)...he was using different dialect, and when he yelled "Bierzajcie", he meant "Attack, Attack", but guys from different contingent, didnt understand it, they thought that he is yelling "Run away" :lol:

so, communication is one of more important things during war :lol:

PS. small Mongol unit burned my village during this war p-)

sorry for OT :)

[DarkAngel]

In later periods, it's very likely that the Europeans would beat the Japanese. BUT if you look at the Kamakura period and that immediately before it (the Gempei War), things would not be so easy for a European army. Yes, as Seiyuki said, there was still alot of emphasis on individual combat, but the armies of the time were also huge combined arms forces, and it's generally been proven that weapons and armour made during the Gempei War period were SUPERIOR to those made later. Of course, nothing really compares to the European style full-plate armour, and Masamune's bullet-proof armour made much later, but they were VERY good all the same.

An equivalent European army in the early 1100s would have been hard-pressed to defeat a Japanese army. The Gempei War period was a time when quality and quantity were there in abundance.

[Sayeret]

I know we are talking about the Japanese vs Europeans... But dont forget about the Mongols....

They invaded Eastern Europe in 1238. They swept through Russia destroying all in their path and then proceded to attack Poland and Hungary in the year 1241. The Teutonic knights were no match whatsoever against the Mongol cavalry.

The mongols would make it seem in a battle that they were retreating and then lure the enemy army into a trap and procede to murder them all with their cavalry archers.

Also when they attacked castles they liked to use germ warfare. The Mongols would take a catapault and put either dead bodies or dead animals in it and chunk it over the walls.

After they captured the castle all the people inside would be killed and they would burn the damn thing including the surrounding villages down.

Anyway, Austria was spared because Ogodei (son of Genghis Khan and the current ruler of Mongolia) had died and they retreated back to the steppes in Mongolia in December of that year.

Hoped you liked the history lesson..........I'm a nut when it comes to **** like this.

The Mongols are different than the Japanese. They emphasized a lot more on calvary attacks than the Japanese did.

[bloddyaxe]

http://home.swipnet.se/roland/graphics/mongols.jpg
ye dem mongols are da shiznits yah

http://miniatures.de/img/ancients-4/dba-army-154-mongols.jpg
no doubt Chingiz Khan=greatest rôle-model evahh!

[Lightweight 88]

I've always been under the impression that the first Mongol invasion of Japan, which was largely militarily successful, was much aided by the Japanese concept of honourable battle.

The Samurai basically waited to be introduced to their foes formally before engaging and couldn't quite get their heads around the concept of fighting against someone they din't know, or whose employer/master they didn't know.

[Thom]

As far as a straight field battle would go, with the extremely limited information you've given us.. like no real date. i'd have to go with a european army almost every time. many people have already mentioned some of the reasons... the tactics, the amor and style of fighting.

However, that's mainly because this never happened... if the japanese were under threat from a european style army, they would have adapted weapons,tactics etc.. or been destroyed.

[Adam Wilhelm]

Hmm... a army of crusaders with Knights Templars!!
Let the ass-whoping begin!

In my humble opinion (yeah right) the western army was equally to the japanese or superior.
The myth around the japanese weapons is just a... myth.
A big hype.