Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Missileer Since most Samurai were trained for close combat and wore thin armor of leather and bamboo, I don't think they could win over Roman legions of cavalry, archers, and foot soldiers. Also Europeans weren't very chivalrous when it came to battle. All ceremony went out the window. |
Most Samurai were very good archers as well as being superb close quarter fighters. They also had cavalry regiments so as far as modes of troops go, they had all of the European equivalents.
One on one I would personally pick the average Samurai warrior over an average foot soldier of almost any other contempary culture. The way in which they dedicated themselves to the Bushido, the Way of the Warrior, was with a single-mindedness that fighters from a European culture would generally find hard to match. Not to mention the unarmed combat (Bujitsu) that all Samurai followed. Although the Samurai considered style to be very important, it was not at the expense of any substance. And I absolutely agree that the Japanese warrior is likely to be generally better motivated than the Christian equivalent. To die in battle was at the centre of every Samurai's entire way of life. Thus they generally fought with real zeal over and above the basic instinct to win and survive.
Samurai battles generally tended to start with the best/bravest fighter from each side joining in one on one combat with more and more joining in until an all-out melee ensued. However, the question for me is the leadership and tactical ability of the field commander, and for me that would probably decide how any mass battle went.
The other question for me is how Samurai would deal with the European heavy knight, who tended to be the elite warriors in most Christian nations. The Samurai would generally be better motivated, better skilled and better trained, but the difficulties of fighting a well protected warrior who was also well trained and well motivated would provide the Samurai warrior with some real issues.