Who would win the battle?

[Ted]

I've just finished reading this book on Bushido and the Samurai. In this book they theorised about the warrior's ethics, skill and commitment of the samurai warrior. Is raised the question that if you'd put 5000 samurai and 5000 contemporary European soldiers on the field; that the Japanese would probably win.

Do you guys share this view?

 

[istealfreefood]

i think that the contemporary eauropean soldier would. The PTO in WWII was pretty mcuh the contemporary soldier of the time, against a soldier with the Samuri spirit.

 

[Fox]

I think that would be european soldiers. European soldiers have catapult, knights with chain of metals and metals. also their horses wear chain of metals, etc.

 

[G Connor]

The samurai were more equivalent to the medieval knight. Without a whole slew of footmen, archers and camp followers, they just weren't very effective. Look what happened in the Crusades.

 

[DTop]

Ted, you pose an interesting question. I must ask though, was this book written by a Japanese?
In any event, I think you could clarify the question a bit. Would this battle take place in modern times with the Samurai using unfamiliar modern weapons or back in ancient times with the Euro fighter doing the same with the ancient weapons? Would the battle take place in Europe or in Japan?
The book's conclusion seems to assume that the Japanese warriors would be better motivated (Bushido) on the battlefield all things considered equal. I am not sure I'd agree with that. Equally motivated, equipped, and skilled warriors pitted against each other on a neutral field of battle, while rarely ever happening, usually comes down to which side has the better leadership and the general fortunes of the day.

 

[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.

 

[Doppleganger]

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.

 

[Ted]

Ted, you pose an interesting question. I must ask though, was this book written by a Japanese?
In any event, I think you could clarify the question a bit. Would this battle take place in modern times with the Samurai using unfamiliar modern weapons or back in ancient times with the Euro fighter doing the same with the ancient weapons? Would the battle take place in Europe or in Japan?
The book's conclusion seems to assume that the Japanese warriors would be better motivated (Bushido) on the battlefield all things considered equal. I am not sure I'd agree with that. Equally motivated, equipped, and skilled warriors pitted against each other on a neutral field of battle, while rarely ever happening, usually comes down to which side has the better leadership and the general fortunes of the day.

The book is written by John Newman, who went from Royal Marine to lecturer of Japanese at the London University. It called: Bushido, the way of the warrior. A new perspective on the Japanese military tradition. ISBN 0-8317-1031-4.
My question regards a battle in say around 1400. The knight were at their peak, with their armour for heavy cavalry. The samurai would have their katana's of superior steel and long bows with heavy arrows, and I really mean heavy arrows. The leadership should be equally capable, so it is entirely up to the individual warrior.

 

[DTop]

The book is written by John Newman, who went from Royal Marine to lecturer of Japanese at the London University. It called: Bushido, the way of the warrior. A new perspective on the Japanese military tradition. ISBN 0-8317-1031-4.
My question regards a battle in say around 1400. The knight were at their peak, with their armour for heavy cavalry. The samurai would have their katana's of superior steel and long bows with heavy arrows, and I really mean heavy arrows. The leadership should be equally capable, so it is entirely up to the individual warrior.

Well, that's the thing, it's not just about the warriors. It would be as it always has been, a matter of whose technology was superior. I think your asking if the long bow of the Samurai would be superior to what the Euro knights would have. Their steel may have been superior but their bows?That can't be considered a foregone conclusion.
This is from wikipedia.

The samurai stressed skill with the yumi (longbow), reflected in the art of kyudo. The bow would remain a critical component of the Japanese military well into the 19th Century, only temporarilly threatened by the introduction of firearms during the Sengoku Jidai period. The yumi, an asymetric composite bow made from bamboo, wood, and leather, was not as powerful as the Eurasian reflex composite bow, having an effective range of 50 metres or less (100 metres if accuracy was not an issue). It was usually used on foot behind a tedate, a large and mobile bamboo wall, but shorter versions could also be used from horseback. The practice of shooting from horseback became a Shinto ceremony of Yabusame

So, I would think that a contest would be as close to a toss up as I can imagine, each side having advantages and disadvantages.

 

[Ted]

yumi, an asymetric composite bow made from bamboo, wood, and leather, was not as powerful as the Eurasian reflex composite bow, having an effective range of 50 metres or less (100 metres if accuracy was not an issue).

This did raise an eyebrown, because I read complete opposite stories aboutthe yumi. For example:

It was a naval battle between great high-pooped junks, loaded to the water’s edge with warriors. But, strangely enough, it was a naval battle that owed its victory, if we can believe the chronicler, to the prowess of the bow and arrow. The iron bolts shot from the longbows of the Minamoto archers are said to have gone crashing through the planking of the Taira junks, scuttling them as effectually as the more modern rifle ball. As the riddled hulls sank, they left the brave warriors, swimming in a bloody sea, easy targets for the showers of relentless arrows of the Minamoto.

Another renowned warrior shot one night at what he thought was a tiger; on visiting the spot the next morning he found his arrow embedded several inches in the solid rock.

Some Japanese feats have already been mentioned. A well-authenticated shot of long range accuracy was that of Nasuno Yo-ichi, who pierced the Hinomaru (rising sun) on a warrior’s fan, at the distance of 700 yards, hoisted by the enemy as a challenge.

And it goes on and on. I've added the link, because it is an interesting read.
http://ejmas.com/jcs/jcsart_denig_0301.htm
http://eclay.netwiz.net/translat/kyudo.htm

Enjoy

 

[Missileer]

Ted, I think the sources you posted are written as fables from folklore.


"And if we are to believe their wonderful tales, it took a strong-handed man to use an ancient bow. That of Hidesato, a tenth-century hero, required the strength of five men to pull it. He, however, sank an arrow five feet in length up to the feather into the iron forehead of an enormous centipede, a fabulous creature that carried in each claw a flaming torch. When the arrow pierced its brain, the lights went out and the monster fell to the earth with the noise of thunder. Another renowned warrior shot one night at what he thought was a tiger; on visiting the spot the next morning he found his arrow embedded several inches in the solid rock."

"Their books abound in stories of marvelous feats with the bow and of miraculous escapes. The arrow turned aside, or breaking in the air, or cut in twain with the sharp sword while in flight, or caught in the hand and returned with deadly aim by an expert bowman. The famous Go-go-ro, of Kamakura, in the siege of Tori-no-uni, is said to have received an arrow in his left eye; without stopping to take it out, he shot a shaft in reply that killed the enemy who had wounded him."

 

[sandy]

It depends on their arms.
It is a superstition that the katana is samurai's arms for a long time.
The sword was said in about the 12th century that it was useless in battle.
Samurai's main arms were longbow and spear.
It became a gun in the 16th century.

 

[Ted]

Ted, I think the sources you posted are written as fables from folklore.

I think you're right about that. But I used the examples to show that the longbow were powerful, long range weapons. This was in reaction on the piece that Wikipedia said on the topic. Imo that piece wasn't ver accurate and as you know, foklore is often based on a truthful story.

 

[bulldogg]

All of this fails to take into account the ground and reason for fighting. On open neutral ground I would side with the samurai owing to their attitude. But place the fight in Europe with the Europeans defending kith and kin and I would side with their Europeans getting the upper hand. Nothing happens in a bubble.

 

[Ted]

Off course is this a major influence on the fighting spirit of the men. But I am trying to rule out all these influences. What matters is: skill, techniques, equipment, spirit and prowess. The field is equal to all. No home advantages etc, just plain fighting a battle with an equal starting point.

 

[bulldogg]

The attitude of a soldier is a great equalizer. More so than any weapon.

 

[sven hassell]

As far as zeal goes it can't all be attributed to the Samurai.
I'm sure European medieval knights were just as fanatical.If not more so than their Eastern counterparts.
Convinced that God and Jesus were on their side and knowing if they fought well (European martial arts were highly effective) that they would surely enter heaven would make them equal in attitude and ability.
The Europeans better armour,better weaponry and MUCH heavier horses would easily tip the balance in their favour.

 

[Ted]

The Europeans better armour,better weaponry and MUCH heavier horses would easily tip the balance in their favour.

The heavy armour also has it serious drawbacks; rememder how Barbarossa came to his end!
The sword things is somewhat dubious.

Comparisons with European swords

It is a commonly-encountered article of faith that katanas are intrinsically superior to European swords. This belief is frequently bolstered by roleplaying games that assign superior statistics to katanas, and also by many movies. However, these claims are largely based on misunderstandings about the manufacture and role of European swords, and comparing the schools on their worst examples instead of their best.
Because Japan was an iron-poor society, making a sword was an inherently expensive undertaking; the supply of swords was limited, and so it was in the smiths' interest to make the most of the materials they could afford. Europe also had superlative swordsmiths; Toledo steel swords from Spain are one example of legendary quality swords from outside Japan. However, the greater availability of iron made it practical to produce cheap, low-quality weapons in large quantities. Where Europeans had the choice between expensive good swords and cheap bad swords, Japanese had the choice between expensive swords, somewhat less expensive swords, or none at all.
Some European swords were also designed for different modes of combat. The katana's sharpness makes it an excellent cutting weapon. Katana are capable of damaging armor to a degree and even today Shinkendo masters perform the ancient helmet cutting ceremony. In this light, the different characteristics of certain European swords are due less to the limitations of their makers than to the requirements of their use. Attempting to establish the superiority of the one weapon over the other is ultimately meaningless without first defining the circumstances in which they are to be compared.
At the same time, many European sword types from the very beginning of the history of the sword, through the medieval period and the renaissance to the 20th century were designed for the same combat modes as Japanese ones, fighting against lightly-armored or unarmored infantry. Styles that relied on a single longsword for both offense and defense were well known - see e.g. Joachim Meyer's fechtbuch[2] - and disparities in weight have been greatly exaggerated; both longswords and katanas typically weighed between 1.0 and 1.5 kilograms (2-3 pounds).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katana

If I am right he says: The Europeans could match the quality of the katana's or even exceed it. But because they had more steel, they choose more swords of lesser quality... At least that's how I understand it. So the katanas' were of better quality. The European smiths could make excellent weapons, but they didn't.
So will the heavy horse tip the scale in the end?

 

[bulldogg]

Aye, me uncle talked of it, how in 200 hundred years no army had withstood a charge from 'eavy 'orse. Lucky for yoooou lightning flashed from me eyesss and balls of fire from me arse.

 

[sven hassell]

The heavy armour also has it serious drawbacks; rememder how Barbarossa came to his end!
The sword things is somewhat dubious.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katana

If I am right he says: The Europeans could match the quality of the katana's or even exceed it. But because they had more steel, they choose more swords of lesser quality... At least that's how I understand it. So the katanas' were of better quality. The European smiths could make excellent weapons, but they didn't.
So will the heavy horse tip the scale in the end?

In answer to this Ted I think YES.
So far we have these arguments that make a Samurai superior.
1)Attitude,fanatical belief and bushido code.
2)Training and skill,martial arts armed and unarmed
3)Weapons,finer quality swords

And in the European corner we have:
1)Attitude,also fanatical and a moral religious code that makes them unafraid of death.
2)Training and skill