Who would win the battle?




View Poll Results :Who would win the pitched battle?
The Samurai 8 20.00%
The contemporary European soldier 17 42.50%
Depends on the terrain, weather and other circumstances 15 37.50%
Voters: 40. You may not vote on this poll

 
--
 
April 26th, 2006  
Ted
 
 

Topic: Who would win the battle?


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?
April 26th, 2006  
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.
April 26th, 2006  
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.
--
April 26th, 2006  
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.
April 26th, 2006  
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.
April 26th, 2006  
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.
April 26th, 2006  
Doppleganger
 
 
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.
April 26th, 2006  
Ted
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
April 26th, 2006  
DTop
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ted
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.
Quote:
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.
April 27th, 2006  
Ted
 
 
Quote:
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:


Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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