# Who were superior at combat in ancient times? The Japanese or the British?



## Towel Snapper (Sep 18, 2014)

So at an approximate time when the Japanese had the Samurai, Ninjas, and so forth and the British had the knight with broad sword shield and Armour. 

It seems the Europeans where superior at war even back then, they had castles, archers, cavalry, and it just seemed larger scale, more advanced as a whole, and superior.

Although the Japanese had more advanced swords imo and made clever innovations, but as a whole I think they were inferior, when it came to war.


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 18, 2014)

At the time you seem to be comparing there were no 'British'. There weren't really any 'Europeans' either, lots of different countries, lots of different strengths of armies, weapons etc have you an actual date in mind? Otherwise, to be honest, this doesn't make any sense.


----------



## Towel Snapper (Sep 18, 2014)

Tez3 said:


> At the time you seem to be comparing there were no 'British'. There weren't really any 'Europeans' either, lots of different countries, lots of different strengths of armies, weapons etc have you an actual date in mind? Otherwise, to be honest, this doesn't make any sense.



thats very negative and pedantic, its almost like you want to draw me into a trolling argument....


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 18, 2014)

Oh dear. negative would be me saying that you are a silly little boy who posts utter rubbish up without doing any research and then whinges like a child because he's not taken seriously but I didn't say that did I? I actually answered your post and even asked a question.


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 18, 2014)

Inane? :lfao::lfao::lfao::lfao::lfao:


----------



## jezr74 (Sep 18, 2014)

Tez3 said:


> Inane? :lfao::lfao::lfao::lfao::lfao:



What if the British attacked from the left or right?


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Sep 18, 2014)

Towel Snapper said:


> So at an approximate time when the Japanese had the Samurai, Ninjas, and so forth and the British had the knight with broad sword shield and Armour.
> 
> It seems the Europeans where superior at war even back then, they had castles, archers, cavalry, and it just seemed larger scale, more advanced as a whole, and superior.
> 
> Although the Japanese had more advanced swords imo and made clever innovations, but as a whole I think they were inferior, when it came to war.



Are you under the impression that the Japanese did not have castles, archers, and cavalry?


----------



## Towel Snapper (Sep 18, 2014)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Are you under the impression that the Japanese did not have castles, archers, and cavalry?



Not to the same extent, not in the same numbers, and they rode Tigers not horses.


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 18, 2014)

Towel Snapper said:


> Not to the same extent, not in the same numbers, and they rode Tigers not horses.


----------



## Cirdan (Sep 18, 2014)

What do you mean the Japanese "had more advanced swords"? In the real world I mean, not whatever video game you have been playing. Tiger riding cavalry??


----------



## Chris Parker (Sep 18, 2014)

Towel Snapper said:


> So at an approximate time when the Japanese had the Samurai, Ninjas, and so forth and the British had the knight with broad sword shield and Armour.
> 
> It seems the Europeans where superior at war even back then, they had castles, archers, cavalry, and it just seemed larger scale, more advanced as a whole, and superior.
> 
> Although the Japanese had more advanced swords imo and made clever innovations, but as a whole I think they were inferior, when it came to war.



Oh for the love of jam and jelly and joyous little jezebels&#8230; what the hell are you going on about here?!?!

The history of the samurai in Japan was around 1,000 years&#8230; it covered a hell of a lot of time, and a hell of a lot of different formats in both locations&#8230; "ninja", as you understand them, didn't really exist&#8230; the samurai was ostensibly the equivalent of a European mounted knight&#8230; so it's not a matter of one being "better" than the other&#8230; the samurai had armour themselves, you know&#8230; as well as castles, and the whole nine yards (not so much shields&#8230; but then again, they had those built into their armour).

To be blunt, you're making your assessment based on absolutely no knowledge whatsoever of anything you're talking about&#8230; right?



Towel Snapper said:


> Not to the same extent, not in the same numbers, and they rode Tigers not horses.



What on earth are you basing that particular stretch of lunacy on?


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 18, 2014)

I found this, I don't have the knowledge of arms etc necessary to know how good the article is but I imagine many of the points are valid?

The Medieval European Knight vs. The Feudal Japanese Samurai


----------



## donald1 (Sep 18, 2014)

Personally i would favor the European medieval knights, I like the Armour  

In a fight between samurai or knight?  Honestly I could imagine that could go either way but would be something to see


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 18, 2014)

I like the conclusion to the article I posted up.

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]*"So               what can we really know?*[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]As               can be seen, there are just far too many variables and unknowns               to make a judgment either way for such a theoretical question as               who could defeat whom between knights and samurai. The fight cannot               be reduced to any generalized statements about who had the overall               historical advantage in skill or who had the superior array of arms               and armor.  In matters like this we certainly cannot not invoke               mystical principles or endless "what ifs" and still engage in intelligent               conjecture. All we can do is give an opinion of questionable value. Still,               it is an intriguing comparison to ponder objectively. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]There               is so much unnecessary emotion encountered when fervent proponents               of one or the other schools of swordsmanship speculates wildly on               this topic. _Amusingly, before reflexively reacting with a strong opinion one way or               another when thinking about this subject, we might want to stop               and ask ourselves to ponder the same imaginary contest between two samurai, for example, a Muromachi era versus say, a _[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]_Kamakura__ one. Or we could do the same for the               knight, posing the problem of who would defeat whom, an 11[SUP]th[/SUP]               century Flemish knight or a 14[SUP]th[/SUP] century Burgundian one?  By doing this simple mental exercise we can               see the inherent problems of arguing one way or another over such               imaginary fights. _[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Keeping               in mind that live demonstrations speak louder than any words, hopefully               this writing has cleared away some of the prejudice on behalf of               both kenjutsu students and Medievalists.  I personally give               only limited credit to occasions of cross-sparring by modern practitioners               of each respective art, as they seldom can meet under mutually agreeable               or equally advantageous conditions for very long. Personally, while               I admire the techniques and principles of kenjutsu as generally               being highly effective (but not specifically its modern methods               of instruction), I cannot disregard the proven efficacy of the sword               and shield method. Nor can I ignore the formidable utility and versatility               of an excellent European longsword or great sword when combined               with superior European armor &#8211;and the difficulty it offers when               posed against the single sword.  But a fine katana can be a               truly awesome sword. I have long been an admirer of its form and               function. However, not all of them were superb weapons and typically               the quality of European blades is erroneously denigrated and dismissed. Also,               my own understanding of the German and Italian longsword and great-sword               methods of fence from the late 14th to early 17th centuries gives               be considerable doubt that a skilled knight of any era would encounter               anything too unfamiliar in facing a samurai swordsman of any era. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]There               are many other factors that still could be raised when speculating               on a hypothetical combat between a knight and a samurai.  In the end though, my own answer to the question               of who would win is that it is unanswerable..._but would be an awesome experiment_.  Being a great warrior is               a matter of individual ability and technical factors that are not               exclusive to any one culture or time period.  The better fighter               wins a fight, and whoever does win is therefore considered the better               fighter &#8211;or at least the luckier one."[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][/FONT]


----------



## Steve (Sep 18, 2014)

We have superheroes and they have giant mechs.   I think it's a wash.  


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Xue Sheng (Sep 18, 2014)

Steve said:


> We have superheroes and they have giant mechs.   I think it's a wash.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



You seem to be forgetting......the Japanese have.....this


----------



## donald1 (Sep 18, 2014)

Xue Sheng said:


> You seem to be forgetting......the Japanese have.....this



The knights have crusaders and the crusaders and they had a cross and They believed that the symbol of the cross made them invincible


----------



## Towel Snapper (Sep 18, 2014)

Tez3 said:


> I found this, I don't have the knowledge of arms etc necessary to know how good the article is but I imagine many of the points are valid?
> 
> The Medieval European Knight vs. The Feudal Japanese Samurai



Where are the pictures man?

Just kidding thankyou!


----------



## Xue Sheng (Sep 18, 2014)

donald1 said:


> The knights have crusaders and the crusaders and they had a cross and They believed that the symbol of the cross made them invincible



Yeah but the Japanese also have Sonny Chiba


----------



## jks9199 (Sep 18, 2014)

Towel Snapper said:


> Not to the same extent, not in the same numbers, and they rode Tigers not horses.



Where they hell did you get that silly idea?  Some comic book?

The Japanese rode horses.  Some fought on horseback, though I suspect that they never really developed extensive cavalry tactics since much of Japan isn't suited to it.  Could be wrong on that, though...


----------



## tshadowchaser (Sep 18, 2014)

If they had ever fought against each other we would have an answer but they did not and we do not. All speculation as to which was better or which sword was better in battle is just that speculation based on simulated battle scenarios that we make up today


----------



## EddieCyrax (Sep 18, 2014)

Lets fire up the old PC game Age of Empires and find out......


----------



## donald1 (Sep 18, 2014)

Xue Sheng said:


> Yeah but the Japanese also have Sonny Chiba



The Europeans also have king author and he has a table (not just any table)  a round one


----------



## Xue Sheng (Sep 18, 2014)

NAH, here is the proof, the Deadliest warrior game, Knights vs Samurai 

The Deadliest Warrior TV show did Vikings vs Samurai but not knights...sorry


----------



## Xue Sheng (Sep 18, 2014)

donald1 said:


> The Europeans also have king author and he has a table (not just any table)  a round one



Japanese don't need no stinking round table, they can sit on the floor AND Japanese eat raw fish..... you don't see those mamby pamby knights doing that at their round table now do ya :uhyeah:


----------



## donald1 (Sep 18, 2014)

No,  you got a point there,  the knights just got their chairs and roast pig with the occasional roasting chicken :lfao:


----------



## Xue Sheng (Sep 18, 2014)

Yeah but what about this






they wouldn't stand a chance against this


----------



## jks9199 (Sep 18, 2014)

Xue Sheng said:


> Japanese don't need no stinking round table, they can sit on the floor AND Japanese eat raw fish..... you don't see those mamby pamby knights doing that at their round table now do ya :uhyeah:



Now, now, I have it on the best of authorities that true knights could go a month without eating!


----------



## Cirdan (Sep 18, 2014)

I believe this comes down to Godzilla vs Friar Tuck.







 VS 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




Looks pretty even.. could Tez with a golf club tip it in favor of the brits?


----------



## Xue Sheng (Sep 18, 2014)

jks9199 said:


> Now, now, I have it on the best of authorities that true knights could go a month without eating!



:hmm: tilting at windmills are we


----------



## Dirty Dog (Sep 18, 2014)

Xue Sheng said:


> Yeah but what about this



Did anybody else notice that right at the 1 min mark, Belushi actually hit the guy behind him in the cheek?

Yes, I watched it. I'm not proud of it, but I did.


----------



## donald1 (Sep 18, 2014)

You don't have to feel ashamed,  it was a funny video


----------



## Xue Sheng (Sep 18, 2014)

Dirty Dog said:


> Did anybody else notice that right at the 1 min mark, Belushi actually hit the guy behind him in the cheek?
> 
> Yes, I watched it. I'm not proud of it, but I did.



That guy was Buck Henry and I saw it happen on TV when I was watching Saturday Night Live...likely live and I'm proud of it too


----------



## PhotonGuy (Sep 18, 2014)

Really, theres no point in replying to anybody's post who pretends to be an expert.


----------



## Cirdan (Sep 18, 2014)

PhotonGuy said:


> Really, theres no point in replying to anybody's post who pretends to be an expert.



So true.

(Please excuse me while I clean up the mess I just made of my coffee)


----------



## Hong Kong Pooey (Sep 18, 2014)

Towel Snapper said:


> So at an approximate time when the Japanese had the Samurai, Ninjas, and so forth and the British had the knight with broad sword shield and Armour.
> 
> It seems the Europeans where superior at war even back then, they had castles, archers, cavalry, and it just seemed larger scale, more advanced as a whole, and superior.
> 
> Although the Japanese had more advanced swords imo and made clever innovations, but as a whole I think they were inferior, when it came to war.



I don't know about the other Europeans, but you are correct in that the British were, and are, superior. Everyone knows that, right?

The samurai were mighty warriors but it doesn't matter if they rode tigers, lions, bears, rhinos, elephants, sharks or fire breathing dragons. The Brits would still win.

The above is scientifically proven fact, and the fact that I'm British in no way negates that or implies any bias


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 18, 2014)

Hong Kong Pooey said:


> I don't know about the other Europeans, but you are correct in that the British were, and are, superior. Everyone knows that, right?
> 
> The samurai were mighty warriors but it doesn't matter if they rode tigers, lions, bears, rhinos, elephants, sharks or fire breathing dragons. The Brits would still win.
> 
> The above is scientifically proven fact, and the fact that I'm British in no way negates that or implies any bias




Well you are British for now lol, if you are in Scotland you may wake up not British!
 'British' however didn't mean a United Kingdom until the 18th century when all the countries were joined legally.


----------



## Hong Kong Pooey (Sep 18, 2014)

Tez3 said:


> Well you are British for now lol, if you are in Scotland you may wake up not British!
> 'British' however didn't mean a United Kingdom until the 18th century when all the countries were joined legally.



I'll definitely still be British tomorrow, I'm on the right side of Hadrian's wall 

Hope the jocks don't go, but if they do vote to leave the UK, wouldn't they technically still be British? I mean this island we share is still Great Britain, no?

I know we're getting off topic now, but TS is banned (who could have seen that coming...) so does it really matter?


----------



## donald1 (Sep 18, 2014)

I don't know...   Could go either way


----------



## donald1 (Sep 18, 2014)

That's a shame,  seemed like a nice person when he wasn't calling people trolls or idiots but rules are rules


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 18, 2014)

I got a message from him because I asked him where he came from, he said England but he had to remain anonymous, I asked because all his writing indicated he was American, his spelling and his expressions but heyho he's gone. I though if he was in England and trained MMA I'd know who he trained with and if he wanted a good first fight I'd help.
One thing for sure, I am not staying up all night to watch the referendum results, I'll let it be a surprise. the money markets are saying a no vote though. I think we will still be Gt Britain though because that's the geographical description, it could be no more United Kingdom. It confuses non Brits as it is lol.

On the subject of the OP well almost, have any of you been to the Royal Armouries in Leeds? There's a terrific collection of weapons from around the world covering centuries. Absolutely brilliant....and free!


----------



## Xue Sheng (Sep 18, 2014)

donald1 said:


> That's a shame,  seemed like a nice person when he wasn't calling people trolls or idiots but rules are rules



 he's gone...oh darn... oh well....:s436:


----------



## donald1 (Sep 18, 2014)

That's my favorite part,  free


----------



## Hanzou (Sep 18, 2014)

The middle ages are considered "ancient times"?

In any case, my money would be on the English/British because of the Long Bow and the siege technology that Europeans had.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Sep 18, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> The middle ages are considered "ancient times"?



What the hell? I'm middle aged one minute and ancient the next???

Crap.


----------



## donald1 (Sep 18, 2014)

It's a cold place when that stuff happens fast as a minute.  I'd hate to see what would happen if a hour went by or worse a day...


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 19, 2014)

Ah Scotland is staying, no divorce yet then, the reconciliation process is going to be interesting. Back in the days when we fought on the battlefield rather that in the voting booth the Scots had some interesting weapons as well as the English, as Hanzou has mentioned already, our archers for a start! When we went to the Royal Armouries the sheer amount of different European swords through the ages is astounding, there is an Asian and Oriental floor, as well, all covering centuries. The variety of weapons that come from what is now India is amazing and quite vicious! In the Japanese bit there is armour and a video about Japanese mounted archer, when we were there a historian was giving demos with Japanese weapons and armour. There are also live size models of horses with armour, of course plenty of suits of armour through out the ages. for those that like modern weapons which are surprisingly not so modern there are guns, rifles and pistols etc. The idea of a 'gun' is far older than I thought. It's a very good days visit and then come back again for stuff you missed. The main point is though it is well nigh impossible to give an opinion about the OP.

http://www.royalarmouries.org/what-we-do


----------



## Steve (Sep 19, 2014)

Tez3 said:


> Ah Scotland is staying, no divorce yet then, the reconciliation process is going to be interesting. Back in the days when we fought on the battlefield rather that in the voting booth the Scots had some interesting weapons as well as the English, as Hanzou has mentioned already, our archers for a start! When we went to the Royal Armouries the sheer amount of different European swords through the ages is astounding, there is an Asian and Oriental floor, as well, all covering centuries. The variety of weapons that come from what is now India is amazing and quite vicious! In the Japanese bit there is armour and a video about Japanese mounted archer, when we were there a historian was giving demos with Japanese weapons and armour. There are also live size models of horses with armour, of course plenty of suits of armour through out the ages. for those that like modern weapons which are surprisingly not so modern there are guns, rifles and pistols etc. The idea of a 'gun' is far older than I thought. It's a very good days visit and then come back again for stuff you missed. The main point is though it is well nigh impossible to give an opinion about the OP.
> 
> http://www.royalarmouries.org/what-we-do



Robert the Bruce just rolled in his grave. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Chris Parker (Sep 19, 2014)

Tez3 said:


> I found this, I don't have the knowledge of arms etc necessary to know how good the article is but I imagine many of the points are valid?
> 
> The Medieval European Knight vs. The Feudal Japanese Samurai



It's interesting from a JSA perspective, it's fairly lacking he gets a lot wrong, especially in the details, and contradicts himself more than a few times but none of that really seems to have much effect on his end conclusions. I could do a pull-apart, but don't think there's really a need just realise that it's not something I'd point to as really correct in any form of understanding of Japanese sword, armour, military methods, history, or a few other areas at all.



PhotonGuy said:


> Really, theres no point in replying to anybody's post who pretends to be an expert.



Hmm how about those who have genuine expertise? And, out of interest, how can you tell the difference?



donald1 said:


> That's a shame,  seemed like a nice person when he wasn't calling people trolls or idiots but rules are rules



No, he wasn't. See the whole board start with the name look at patterns recognise the behaviour we never saw the actual guy at all just a false, created internet persona created to troll this site (and probably a few others I'll be keeping an eye out).



Hanzou said:


> The middle ages are considered "ancient times"?



Well considering the time period referred to as the "Middle Ages" covers the time from 6 to 11 CENTURIES ago yeah. You were thinking that 542AD, for instance, was recent events?



Hanzou said:


> In any case, my money would be on the English/British because of the Long Bow and the siege technology that Europeans had.



Really? You want to tell me how the presence of a long-bow is some advantage against a group known primarily through their history as highly skilled elite mounted archers? To the point that that role was really the definition for a while of what being a samurai was all about? And do you want to explain how the European siege towers fare in Japan? You do know how different the structures of the castles there are, yeah? How the geography really isn't particularly suited to such machines, nor really allowing them to get into a position where they'd be any real effect at all? What, precisely, do you know about Japanese castle siege defences? Or, hell, just castle defences themselves, against siege or other?

You may be putting too much stock in aspects that either provide little advantage, or are going to be almost unusable care to try again?


----------



## Hanzou (Sep 19, 2014)

Chris Parker said:


> Well&#8230; considering the time period referred to as the "Middle Ages" covers the time from 6 to 11 CENTURIES ago&#8230; yeah. You were thinking that 542AD, for instance, was recent events?




Well, most historians don't consider the medieval period "ancient". The generally accepted end point of ancient times is the beginning of the Middle Ages.

Which is why it's called the Middle Ages. It's the period between ancient times and the modern period.




> Really? You want to tell me how the presence of a long-bow is some advantage against a group known primarily through their history as highly skilled elite mounted archers? To the point that that role was really the definition for a while of what being a samurai was all about? And do you want to explain how the European siege towers fare in Japan? You do know how different the structures of the castles there are, yeah? How the geography really isn't particularly suited to such machines, nor really allowing them to get into a position where they'd be any real effect at all? What, precisely, do you know about Japanese castle siege defences? Or, hell, just castle defences themselves, against siege or other?




Crecy, Poitiers, and Agincourt during the Hundred Years War. Notably at Agincourt, The English slaughtered a numerically superior army of mounted French knights utilizing primarily the longbow. I seriously doubt the Samurai would fair much better.

In terms of siege warfare, Europeans were using cannons by the end of the 16th century (towards the end of the Sengoku period in Japan, and before the establishment of the Tokugawa Shogunate). This, on top of centuries of experience utilizing siege warfare from the fall of Rome, to the Crusades, and all the way up to the Hundred Year's war made Europeans pretty darn good at siege tactics. I seriously doubt Japanese castles and fortifications were any stronger than European castles and fortifications.



> You may be putting too much stock in aspects that either provide little advantage, or are going to be almost unusable&#8230; care to try again?



The longbow, and siege tech is a pretty considerable advantage. Especially when you have example of that technology working in similar situations to the hypothetical in the OP. I would say that things would be equal to almost swinging in the favor of the Japanese from about 1100 to about 1400. However after that point, technological advancements and competition from rival nations places the English ahead comfortably. By the late 1500s, it really isn't a contest.


----------



## donald1 (Sep 19, 2014)

Well since knights and samurai are both middle age time and the question is best during ancient times perhaps the Roman gladiators? (just a guess)  maybe other warriors back then but I could be right...


----------



## Hong Kong Pooey (Sep 19, 2014)

donald1 said:


> Well since knights and samurai are both middle age time and the question is best during ancient times perhaps the Roman gladiators? (just a guess)  maybe other warriors back then but I could be right...



I'd say them or the Spartans. Or the Vikings. Depends where you draw the line on what counts as 'ancient times'.


----------



## Hanzou (Sep 19, 2014)

donald1 said:


> Well since knights and samurai are both middle age time and the question is best during ancient times perhaps the Roman gladiators? (just a guess)  maybe other warriors back then but I could be right...



Samurai and Medieval Knights are pretty contemporary. Both entering their heydays from 1100 to about 1600 AD. In Europe the knights became obsolete by new weaponry (Longbows, firearms). In Japan, the Samurai didn't really become obsolete until the Meiji period (mid 1800s). 

Either way, the medieval English simply have access to better military technology than the Japanese due to their near constant warfare with continental Europe throughout the Middle Ages. That gives them an edge across the board. As I said before, their level of equality in military terms comes to a dramatic end around 1400, and that's being generous.


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 19, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Samurai and Medieval Knights are pretty contemporary. Both entering their heydays from 1100 to about 1600 AD. In Europe the knights became obsolete by new weaponry (Longbows, firearms). In Japan, the Samurai didn't really become obsolete until the Meiji period (mid 1800s).
> 
> Either way, the medieval English simply have access to better military technology than the Japanese due to their *near constant warfare with continental Europe throughout the Middle Ages.* That gives them an edge across the board. As I said before, their level of equality in military terms comes to a dramatic end around 1400, and that's being generous.



Actually no, it wasn't a state of near constant warfare. Discounting the Crusades, England wasn't particularly at war with continental Europe at all. At the start of the Middle Ages 'England' (though not called that) was recovering from the Romans leaving, tribes came across from Europe and settled, tribal warfare broke out often but mostly each kingdom ruled itself reasonable amicably for the time, there was no England and no English king. In the 7th century CE moves were made by the Mercians to unite the kingdoms and make a larger country, this caused civil war. 9th century CE brought the Viking invaders and more wars on 'English' land. In the 11th century CE came the Normans. It wasn't until the 14th and 15th centuries CE that England as it was properly by then actually started having wars with people, well the French actually. I_f _you discount the Crusades of course, though if you don't it brings in another warrior group, the Saracens.


----------



## Hanzou (Sep 19, 2014)

Tez3 said:


> Actually no, it wasn't a state of near constant warfare. Discounting the Crusades, England wasn't particularly at war with continental Europe at all. At the start of the Middle Ages 'England' (though not called that) was recovering from the Romans leaving, tribes came across from Europe and settled, tribal warfare broke out often but mostly each kingdom ruled itself reasonable amicably for the time, there was no England and no English king. In the 7th century CE moves were made by the Mercians to unite the kingdoms and make a larger country, this caused civil war. 9th century CE brought the Viking invaders and more wars on 'English' land. In the 11th century CE came the Normans. It wasn't until the 14th and 15th centuries CE that England as it was properly by then actually started having wars with people, well the French actually. I_f _you discount the Crusades of course, though if you don't it brings in another warrior group, the Saracens.




Along with the Crusades, England was constantly fighting France and other European countries pretty consistently from the 1000s all the way up to the modern day.

List of wars involving England - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That's pretty consistent continental warfare for the last 1000 years. I agree with your viewpoint prior to the Norman invasion. However after 1066, you have England engaged in a war across the channel pretty consistently.

Way more than Japan's foreign engagements prior to the Meiji restoration in the 19th century;

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


----------



## Steve (Sep 19, 2014)

And when they weren't fighting the damned French, they were fighting each other.  And getting invaded.  


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 19, 2014)

Steve said:


> And when they weren't fighting the damned French, they were fighting each other.  And getting invaded.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD



Actually the English didn't start fighting the French until the Norman conquest but even that was a sort of civil war. Up to the it had been fighting invaders, invading other tribe's kingdoms ( in Great Britain the geographical name for all our islands, it didn't become the UK until centuries  later) putting down rebellions, fighting the Welsh, Scots and Irish as well as the Danes, all on our soil I'll add. the French weren't really the French at the time of the conquest as it was the Normans who invaded, actually they weren't really French anyway, the name gives it away, they were Vikings who had settled in Normandy a while before. The Hundred Years War with the French started a bit later.


----------



## Steve (Sep 19, 2014)

Tez3 said:


> Actually the English didn't start fighting the French until the Norman conquest but even that was a sort of civil war. Up to the it had been fighting invaders, invading other tribe's kingdoms ( in Great Britain the geographical name for all our islands, it didn't become the UK until centuries  later) putting down rebellions, fighting the Welsh, Scots and Irish as well as the Danes, all on our soil I'll add. the French weren't really the French at the time of the conquest as it was the Normans who invaded, actually they weren't really French anyway, the name gives it away, they were Vikings who had settled in Normandy a while before. The Hundred Years War with the French started a bit later.



Yeah, 1066 and all that.  The salient point isn't who you were fighting.  The salient point is that your were pretty much fighting...  The Danes, the scots, the Irish, the welsh, the Normans, the Gaels, the tuatha de denaan, the whoever you could fight.   You'd make up people to fight and when you couldn't do that, you'd just fight each other.  

Edit: the above post is 79% tongue and cheek, and only 83.7% historically and/or culturally accurate.  


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 19, 2014)

Steve said:


> Yeah, 1066 and all that.  The salient point isn't who you were fighting.  The salient point is that your were pretty much fighting...  The Danes, the scots, the Irish, the welsh, the Normans, the Gaels, the tuatha de denaan, the whoever you could fight.   You'd make up people to fight and when you couldn't do that, you'd just fight each other.
> 
> Edit: the above post is 79% tongue and cheek, and only 83.7% historically and/or culturally accurate.
> 
> ...



Ah but it was all fighting on British soil, there was no trips abroad to sunny Europe until 1106 when Henry the First went to France to beat the Duke of Normandy, who was his brother. The next road trip abroad was in 1178 and 79 when Richard the First beat the King of France.


It was all tribal fighting basically until the Normans gatecrashed the party, that's why I answered the OP that there was no England. There was Mercia, Wessex, Northumbria etc. etc Not even a Wales or Ireland either it was all tribal kingdoms, there was no English army going on away days to Europe. Still we can proudly say that we've never been invaded since 1066 and still hold French land, the Channel Islands lol.


----------



## Steve (Sep 19, 2014)

Ulster, Connacht.  Stealing each other's cows.   Bunch of damn ruffians.  Didn't want to leave the Irish out.  

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 19, 2014)

The kingdoms were Northumbria, Mercia, East Anglia, Essex, Kent, Sussex and Wessex. The latter were the ones who managed to more or less unite England apart from the Danegeld, they were barely holding it together when William arrived. Essex, Kent and Sussex are still counties here, and Northumbria now being called Northumberland.


Ireland and Scotland were the same in that they had different kingdoms, sometimes at war sometimes not. Sometimes it would just be playing. In Ireland though the current Troubles started with Henry the Eighth though English kings had fought there it was never about religion until he tried to force Protestantism on them then it began and carries on now.


----------



## donald1 (Sep 19, 2014)

Tez3 said:


> Actually the English didn't start fighting the French until the Norman conquest but even that was a sort of civil war. Up to the it had been fighting invaders, invading other tribe's kingdoms ( in Great Britain the geographical name for all our islands, it didn't become the UK until centuries  later) putting down rebellions, fighting the Welsh, Scots and Irish as well as the Danes, all on our soil I'll add. *the French weren't really the French at the time* of the conquest as it was the Normans who invaded, actually they weren't really French anyway, the name gives it away, they were Vikings who had settled in Normandy a while before. The Hundred Years War with the French started a bit later.



What do you mean...?


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 20, 2014)

donald1 said:


> What do you mean...?




Although we talk of 'France' there really was no such place until after the 100 years war which helped to unify France as a country. It too was divided into states such as Aquitaine, Burgundy, Normandy etc. Some of it such as Calais belonged to the English crown. It was the same all over Europe, many different states and kingdoms. Italy didn't become Italy until Garibaldi came along.


----------



## Chris Parker (Sep 20, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Well, most historians don't consider the medieval period "ancient". The generally accepted end point of ancient times is the beginning of the Middle Ages.
> 
> Which is why it's called the Middle Ages. It's the period between ancient times and the modern period.



Okay, fair enough with the OP's lack of specification in their usage of terminology, and the lack of capitalisation, I was taking it as representative, rather than a specific referenced time period.



Hanzou said:


> Crecy, Poitiers, and Agincourt during the Hundred Years War. Notably at Agincourt, The English slaughtered a numerically superior army of mounted French knights utilizing primarily the longbow. I seriously doubt the Samurai would fair much better.



You're missing, well, a hell of a lot to make such a statement. For one thing, the usage of archers, particularly long-bows, was a fair point of difference for the English most of Europe considered the usage of bows and arrows to be cowardly ways of fighting for the elite which, when utilised well, can show up as a major advantage (such as Agincourt which, to be frank, the English should never have won) however, in Japan, archery was the order of the day in fact, not just archery, but mounted archery which would give them an advantage over the English longbowmen Japanese armour was designed specifically to protect against arrows 

Again, you might be putting too much stock in variables you're not fully cognisant of 



Hanzou said:


> In terms of siege warfare, Europeans were using cannons by the end of the 16th century (towards the end of the Sengoku period in Japan, and before the establishment of the Tokugawa Shogunate).



At which point Japan had more guns in use and production that all of Europe, you realise including forms of cannons not so much the European format mainly as the requirements for cannons to be effective wasn't really a major practicality for Japanese warfare, on a number of levels.



Hanzou said:


> This, on top of centuries of experience utilizing siege warfare from the fall of Rome, to the Crusades, and all the way up to the Hundred Year's war made Europeans pretty darn good at siege tactics. I seriously doubt Japanese castles and fortifications were any stronger than European castles and fortifications.



Ah, son, you're making assumptions based on a lack of knowledge and looking at exactly the wrong thing there's no idea of "stronger" fortifications but the entire structure and set up means that the siege tactics of Europe would have had little to no effect.



Hanzou said:


> The longbow, and siege tech is a pretty considerable advantage. Especially when you have example of that technology working in similar situations to the hypothetical in the OP. I would say that things would be equal to almost swinging in the favor of the Japanese from about 1100 to about 1400. However after that point, technological advancements and competition from rival nations places the English ahead comfortably. By the late 1500s, it really isn't a contest.



The Japanese were specialist mounted archers no advantage to your English longbow the siege tactics are not applicable to Japanese castles no advantage and the Japanese were actually pretty solid on siege warfare (appropriate to their needs) themselves again, no advantage 

As far as your estimations of timeline and development, I really see no support for any of your contentions whatsoever especially the idea of "it really isn't a contest" by the late 1500's a time when Japan had been in non-stop war for longer than all of Europe, were producing more guns than all of Europe, and were successfully invading/engaging in campaigns in other countries.

So seriously what?



Hanzou said:


> Samurai and Medieval Knights are pretty contemporary. Both entering their heydays from 1100 to about 1600 AD. In Europe the knights became obsolete by new weaponry (Longbows, firearms). In Japan, the Samurai didn't really become obsolete until the Meiji period (mid 1800s).
> 
> "Obsolete"? Hmm not quite the way I'd put it
> 
> ...


----------



## Transk53 (Sep 20, 2014)

Dam, I wished I had got to this thread before the OP's ban. Guess it is just the Essex Boy in me.


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 20, 2014)

Transk53 said:


> Dam, I wished I had got to this thread before the OP's ban. Guess it is just the Essex Boy in me.



Shut up!

(Not being rude it's an Essex expression of incredulity and surprise and wonderment and well everything roflmao.)


----------



## Transk53 (Sep 20, 2014)

Tez3 said:


> Shut up!
> 
> (Not being rude it's an Essex expression of incredulity and surprise and wonderment and well everything roflmao.)



LOL. Yeah man


----------



## Hanzou (Sep 20, 2014)

Chris Parker said:


> You're missing, well, a hell of a lot to make such a statement. For one thing, the usage of archers, particularly long-bows, was a fair point of difference for the English&#8230; most of Europe considered the usage of bows and arrows to be cowardly ways of fighting for the elite&#8230; which, when utilised well, can show up as a major advantage (such as Agincourt&#8230; which, to be frank, the English should never have won)&#8230; however, in Japan, archery was the order of the day&#8230; in fact, not just archery, but mounted archery&#8230; which would give them an advantage over the English longbowmen&#8230; Japanese armour was designed specifically to protect against arrows&#8230;



Whether or not Europeans viewed it as cowardly is pretty irrelevant to the overall point; The Longbow essentially ended the use of heavily armored calvary in European warfare after Agincourt. Also knight's armor was also designed to protect against arrows as well. It still wasn't every effective against the longbow.




> At which point Japan had more guns in use and production that all of Europe, you realise&#8230; including forms of cannons&#8230; not so much the European format&#8230; mainly as the requirements for cannons to be effective wasn't really a major practicality for Japanese warfare, on a number of levels.



Please provide evidence for this. I would very much like to see evidence that Japan produced more guns and cannons than England, France, Spain, Portugal, Dutch, and the Holy Roman Empire combined at the end of the 16th century.



> Ah, son, you're making assumptions based on a lack of knowledge&#8230; and looking at exactly the wrong thing&#8230; there's no idea of "stronger" fortifications&#8230; but the entire structure and set up means that the siege tactics of Europe would have had little to no effect.



Based on what exactly? Please provide evidence.



> The Japanese were specialist mounted archers&#8230; no advantage to your English longbow&#8230;



Actually the advantage is still there because the Japanese samurai were heavy horse archers. In other words, the would fire a volley of arrows and then charge their opponent. Those tactics aren't much different than French tactics in the Hundred Years War. So yes, the Longbow advantage is still in place.



> the siege tactics are not applicable to Japanese castles&#8230; no advantage&#8230; and the Japanese were actually pretty solid on siege warfare (appropriate to their needs) themselves&#8230; again, no advantage&#8230;



Evidence please. 



> As far as your estimations of timeline and development, I really see no support for any of your contentions whatsoever&#8230; especially the idea of "it really isn't a contest" by the late 1500's&#8230; a time when Japan had been in non-stop war for longer than all of Europe, were producing more guns than all of Europe, and were successfully invading/engaging in campaigns in other countries.



Are you oblivious to what is occurring in Europe at this time? By the 1500s, Europe has entered the age of expansion and empire. At this point Europe is exploring and conquering the entire world while Japan is mired in a centuries old civil war. An internal civil war does not advance military technology as rapidly as external warfare does.

Btw, how's Japan's navy circa 1550? If you honestly believe that the 16th century Japanese navy was any match for the English navy of the same period, then there's no point in continuing this conversation.



> No, the medieval English do not have access to better military technology, son. If you think they do, back it up. What did they have that was better technology than the Japanese?



I already backed it up. Again, warfare with other countries advances your military tech faster than civil wars do. English fighting against the Muslims during the Crusades, and continental Europe throughout the middle ages gives them access to military advancements throughout the European continent and the Middle East. This propels European military advancement.

If you need an example, here's a simple one; Who do you think introduced guns to Japan? It wasn't the Chinese.

If you need more, let me know.



> You do see how that wiki article on "wars involving Japan" starts by pointing out that it's "incomplete", yeah? It's a list of some of the major points along the list, but it's really missing the majority&#8230; as it was all internal&#8230; more along the lines of the Italian city-states being at war with each other than the idea of England vs France&#8230; but the wiki list misses over the Sengoku Jidai entirely&#8230; giving only a couple of events a listing&#8230; it's simply not exhaustive enough to be considered even relevant if you're using it to look at the amount of wars seen. It's missing probably 90% of the list.



I've already commented on the advantages of external warfare over civil warfare.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Sep 20, 2014)

Chris Parker said:


> Oh for the love of jam and jelly and joyous little jezebels what the hell are you going on about here?!?!
> 
> The history of the samurai in Japan was around 1,000 years it covered a hell of a lot of time, and a hell of a lot of different formats in both locations "ninja", as you understand them, didn't really exist the samurai was ostensibly the equivalent of a European mounted knight so it's not a matter of one being "better" than the other the samurai had armour themselves, you know as well as castles, and the whole nine yards (not so much shields but then again, they had those built into their armour).
> 
> ...



Oh for the love of jam and jelly and joyous little jezebels stop trying to sound like an expert.


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 20, 2014)

PhotonGuy said:


> Oh for the love of jam and jelly and joyous little jezebels stop trying to sound like an expert.



Ah, we have had long bows, armoured knights, bowmen and swords and now ladies and gentlemen....the personal attack. I take it then you are an expert in which case please enlighten us, I await your treatise with bated breath mon ami.


----------



## Badger1777 (Sep 20, 2014)

Sorry, I couldn't be bothered to read all 5 pages, so appologies in advance if anything I'm about to say has already been said.

Its quite comical to think that someone actually believes that 'British Knights' were the entire fighting force, or even the main fighting force, of medieval Britain. The word 'knight' is an honorary title, not a rank or type of soldier. Paul MacCartney is a knight, as Cliff Richard is I believe. Just imagine Paul MacCartney and Cliff Richard riding into battle on horse back wielding broadswords

Most soldiers of medieval Britain were just whoever the able bodied males were. It was mandatory for all boys in England to attend a form of military training known as 'Bill Drill' every sunday. This is where they would assemble in the town/village square armed with farming tools, often the bill-hook (have you ever seen a bill hook? Think of a massive dagger, that massive dagger is a butter knife compared to the blade of a bill hook). There they would do 'drill', ie regimentally practice different moves with the bill hook. These would be the same lads, and the same weapons, that would make up a significant proportion of any English fighting force.



donald1 said:


> What do you mean...?



The Normans were sort of viking. Even the name gives a clue. Vikings, also known as Norse men, ie men of the north, nor-men, norman. The vikings held a massive empire at one point, which extended right into what we now call France. It was those descendents of the vikings that became the Normans who invaded Britain. At that time, Normandy and Brittany were seperate countries and france didn't even exist as a nation.

But in a way, as has been mentioned, it was kind of a civil war anyway. The vikings, the Normans and all flavours of Brits (except the Roman descendents) have something in common, in that they are all either descended from or directly influenced by the Celts, who came from what we would now call Eastern Europe in ancient times.


----------



## Transk53 (Sep 21, 2014)

Hanzou said:
			
		

> Whether or not Europeans viewed it as cowardly is pretty irrelevant to the overall point; The Longbow essentially ended the use of heavily armored calvary in European warfare after Agincourt. Also knight's armor was also designed to protect against arrows as well. It still wasn't every effective against the longbow.



True. However, (I presume that Samurai armour is one off fitted) most of the French Knights could not afford the elaborate protection allowed by the suits worn by the Dukes and Lords. They could afford the best materials and smithies to make the armour. The average French Knight had to buy off the shelf as it were, and mass produced suits of armour are only as good as the smithie whom made it. Also at Agincourt, a good majority of Knights died as result of being bogged down in mud. In realty, the european suit of armour just looked pretty. Just as many of the French died by the hands of Archers wielding knifes and whatever else came to hand. In some respects, the Long Bowman was the original street fighter. Uncompromising and in fear of his life, not due to cowardice, but knowing what happened when they got caught.


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 21, 2014)

Warfare then as now actually relied not on the knights/officers but the 'boots' on the ground the PBI (poor bloody infantry). Days gone by and in recent times of war these were conscripts, now most places they are volunteers. it was these not the knights, not the Samurai who won and lost wars. I think most have the idea of knights in shiny armour fighting each other using the rules of chivalry etc the truth is more mundane, it was men and often women slogging across muddy fields fighting each other until those with the most standing at the end 'won'. War isn't glorious, never has been, it's death, maiming, grief, fear and confusion, there never was a golden time with knights in bright armour, shining with courage fighting for truth and honour, in fact many knights were mercenaries, fighting for money whoever would employ them. Samurai? I don't know much about them but knowing human nature I doubt they were bright and shining either. War is war, fighting is fighting, never nice and should never be seen through rosy glasses. Who would win, I'd think who ever wanted it more, fighters will use whatever they can to win, and it would probably be very very dirty.


----------



## Hanzou (Sep 21, 2014)

Transk53 said:


> True. However, (I presume that Samurai armour is one off fitted) most of the French Knights could not afford the elaborate protection allowed by the suits worn by the Dukes and Lords. They could afford the best materials and smithies to make the armour. The average French Knight had to buy off the shelf as it were, and mass produced suits of armour are only as good as the smithie whom made it. Also at Agincourt, a good majority of Knights died as result of being bogged down in mud. In realty, the european suit of armour just looked pretty. Just as many of the French died by the hands of Archers wielding knifes and whatever else came to hand. In some respects, the Long Bowman was the original street fighter. Uncompromising and in fear of his life, not due to cowardice, but knowing what happened when they got caught.



To be fair, that situation was similar in Japan as well.

Its important to note that it wasn't just at Agincourt where knights were cut down by longbowmen, it occurred in other battles as well. Agincourt was simply the coup de grace.


----------



## Badger1777 (Sep 21, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> To be fair, that situation was similar in Japan as well.
> 
> Its important to note that it wasn't just at Agincourt where knights were cut down by longbowmen, it occurred in other battles as well. Agincourt was simply the coup de grace.


Agincourt is such a well told story because of the circumstances of the English victory. The English soldiers were actually on their last legs. Starving, exhausted, many ill with disease, and cut off from anywhere friendly. They were also massively outnumbered, and at a massive disadvantage due to the topology of the land at the point where they had to fight. Yet they won, against all odds. That fight would have gone down in history whether there were archers or not, although I suspect that without archers, things would have gone very differently.

As an aside, and I doubt if anyone really knows whether this is true or urban myth, but the story goes that the insult of sticking two fingers up at someone originates from the battle of Agincourt, In the wider war that the battle of Agincourt was part of, the English soldiers that captured a french archer often had no means of keeping him prisoner, so they'd simply let them go, but not before ensuring that they'd never use a bow again. To ensure that they never fired a bow again, they'd cut off the index and middle finger off the captured archer. Then as part of mandatory psychological warfare taunts before an actual battle, archers would stick two finger up at the enemy to say "look, I still have them". Or so the story goes. It might be completely made up.


----------



## Hanzou (Sep 21, 2014)

Badger1777 said:


> Agincourt is such a well told story because of the circumstances of the English victory. The English soldiers were actually on their last legs. Starving, exhausted, many ill with disease, and cut off from anywhere friendly. They were also massively outnumbered, and at a massive disadvantage due to the topology of the land at the point where they had to fight. Yet they won, against all odds. That fight would have gone down in history whether there were archers or not, although I suspect that without archers, things would have gone very differently.
> 
> As an aside, and I doubt if anyone really knows whether this is true or urban myth, but the story goes that the insult of sticking two fingers up at someone originates from the battle of Agincourt, In the wider war that the battle of Agincourt was part of, the English soldiers that captured a french archer often had no means of keeping him prisoner, so they'd simply let them go, but not before ensuring that they'd never use a bow again. To ensure that they never fired a bow again, they'd cut off the index and middle finger off the captured archer. Then as part of mandatory psychological warfare taunts before an actual battle, archers would stick two finger up at the enemy to say "look, I still have them". Or so the story goes. It might be completely made up.



The reason I brought up the Longbow in this discussion is because its considered a medieval super weapon. Again, it effectively ended the era of heavily armored cavalry in Europe, and slowly ushered in the era of long range weapons which eventually culminated with the gun.

Unless the samurai are somehow superior to their European counterparts, I don't see how they would have fared much better.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Sep 21, 2014)

One thing you have to understand about the Samurai and their armor was that they were mounted archers with a longbow. (ie. Yumi)  There armor was different than a European knights in that the armor was many layers of material and metal.  Think of it was similar in some ways to our modern ballistic vests used by our military, law enforcement to help against bullets.  The Samurai armor or Yoroi was specifically designed with layers and their shields were as Chris mentioned built in.  There armor was specifically designed to stop ballistic weapons such as arrows and in later stages the O'Yoroi was ballistically sound to even at times stop bullets.  So you can see the armor is very different than European armor.  

Japanese armour - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Transk53 (Sep 21, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> To be fair, that situation was similar in Japan as well.
> 
> Its important to note that it wasn't just at Agincourt where knights were cut down by longbowmen, it occurred in other battles as well. Agincourt was simply the coup de grace.



Agreed.


----------



## Hanzou (Sep 21, 2014)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> One thing you have to understand about the Samurai and their armor was that they were mounted archers with a longbow. (ie. Yumi)  There armor was different than a European knights in that the armor was many layers of material and metal.  Think of it was similar in some ways to our modern ballistic vests used by our military, law enforcement to help against bullets.  The Samurai armor or Yoroi was specifically designed with layers and their shields were as Chris mentioned built in.  There armor was specifically designed to stop ballistic weapons such as arrows and in later stages the O'Yoroi was ballistically sound to even at times stop bullets.  So you can see the armor is very different than European armor.
> 
> Japanese armour - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Eh... I don't buy that. In the batlle of Nagashino in 1575 for example, Oda Nobunaga used arquebusiers armed with muskets to repel several samurai charges. The battle was so decisive that many consider it the turning point of Japanese warfare. That battle is pretty close to the Japanese version of Agincourt where the era of heavily armored cavalry (in this case Samurai) become obsolete. So while its cool to say that Samurai armor could stop bullets and arrows, the Japanese still used bows and arrows in warfare, and the samura's armor didn't stop them from getting cut down in a hail of gunfire both during the latter Sengoku period, or the Samurai rebellions of the Meiji Period three centuries later.

Its important to also note that the muskets the Japanese used at the battle of Nagashino and throughout the latter Sengoku period (the Arquebus) were first developed in Europe in the 15th century.


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 21, 2014)

Are we taking any definitive date for comparison purposes? We can't really compare the knights of the 10th and 12th century CE with Samurai from the 16th for example. Is it possible we can set a century at least for debate?


----------



## Tgace (Sep 21, 2014)

Never forget... On the internet you could be arguing with a 13 yo.


----------



## Hanzou (Sep 21, 2014)

Tez3 said:


> Are we taking any definitive date for comparison purposes? We can't really compare the knights of the 10th and 12th century CE with Samurai from the 16th for example. Is it possible we can set a century at least for debate?



We don't really need to compare Samurai to Knights for this comparison to be valid. We should be comparing the whole of a country's military to another. The problem is that the Japanese and the English take such very different evolutionary paths that its very hard to pinpoint a fair comparison point. Again, by the late 1500s, western Europe is outpacing the rest of the world at breakneck speed, but that's also the apex of Japanese military innovation until the Meiji period. 

So perhaps a fair comparison point would be the 14th century? You have both Samurai and European knights existing at the same time, both are fedual societies, both are in the primitive stages of firearm development, and neither has impressive naval capacity.


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 21, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> We don't really need to compare Samurai to Knights for this comparison to be valid. We should be comparing the whole of a country's military to another. The problem is that the Japanese and the English take such very different evolutionary paths that its very hard to pinpoint a fair comparison point. Again, by the late 1500s, western Europe is outpacing the rest of the world at breakneck speed, but that's also the apex of Japanese military innovation until the Meiji period. So perhaps a fair comparison point would be the 14th century?



14th century CE then chaps!
If we are discussing the OP though we should compare Samurai to knights unless everyone agrees we need to expand?


----------



## Badger1777 (Sep 21, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> The reason I brought up the Longbow in this discussion is because its considered a medieval super weapon. Again, it effectively ended the era of heavily armored cavalry in Europe, and slowly ushered in the era of long range weapons which eventually culminated with the gun.
> 
> Unless the samurai are somehow superior to their European counterparts, I don't see how they would have fared much better.



Early guns were massively inferior to the long bow. In England at least, the only reason the musket slowly started to replace the long bow was that someone could be trained to fire a musket much more quickly than they could be trained to be any good with a bow. It was purely down to cost and manpower. A skilled archer can get off easily 10 accurate shots per minute and the bow is never going to explode in his face. A musketeer could get around 1 to 2 shots per minute, the shots had a shorter range, and there was something like a 1 in 10 chance that the gun would blow up in his face. But, when you needed numbers, and you can train someone in half a day to be a semi decent shot with a musket, that was the way to go. Or at least so thought the English top brass of the day.


----------



## Hanzou (Sep 21, 2014)

Badger1777 said:


> Early guns were massively inferior to the long bow. In England at least, the only reason the musket slowly started to replace the long bow was that someone could be trained to fire a musket much more quickly than they could be trained to be any good with a bow. It was purely down to cost and manpower. A skilled archer can get off easily 10 accurate shots per minute and the bow is never going to explode in his face. A musketeer could get around 1 to 2 shots per minute, the shots had a shorter range, and there was something like a 1 in 10 chance that the gun would blow up in his face. But, when you needed numbers, and you can train someone in half a day to be a semi decent shot with a musket, that was the way to go. Or at least so thought the English top brass of the day.



It was also because musketballs could penetrate plate armor at close range.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Sep 21, 2014)

*Hanzou you don't have to buy anything* but..... Samurai armor was designed to be effective against the yumi.  Which is a longbow.  Yumi war bows have noted to be in that 70 lb to 95 lb range. (though of course that would totally depend on the person and chance if they were on foot or mounted)  Bottom line the longbow of the English is comparable to the yumi.  Both would penetrate European plate mail armor.  Where as Samurai armor is designed for and against arrows.  This would give the Samurai an advantage at distance.  In close I believe the English knight would have the advantage but just by a little bit.  Yet, in the end it would come down to each individual and or group and their performance on that day.  Not to mention their leadership making the right decisions at the right time.  Not to mention troop strength and size. (how important is that)


This is in many ways like the TMA vs. MMA arguments, etc.or my dad is better than your dad.  Just in this case we will never know because they did not go to battle against each other.  One thing is for sure if they did both sides would re-evaluate their strategies quickly and formulate plans accordingly.  Both groups were great warriors in their time frame! 

*I can appreciate the qualities of both*.  Yet would take a modern American military infrantryman anyday of the week with his tools and weapons. lol


----------



## Hanzou (Sep 21, 2014)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> *Hanzou you don't have to buy anything* but..... Samurai armor was designed to be effective against the yumi.  Which is a longbow.  Yumi war bows have noted to be in that 70 lb to 95 lb range. (though of course that would totally depend on the person and chance if they were on foot or mounted)  Bottom line the longbow of the English is comparable to the yumi.  Both would penetrate European plate mail armor.  Where as Samurai armor is designed for and against arrows.  This would give the Samurai an advantage at distance.  In close I believe the English knight would have the advantage but just by a little bit.  Yet, in the end it would come down to each individual and or group and their performance on that day.  Not to mention their leadership making the right decisions at the right time.



The Yumi is a long bow, but I don't believe it was as powerful as the English longbow. That's up for debate of course, and its a debate I don't feel like having. I was more talking about the claim that Samurai armor was bulletproof. Oda Nobunaga and the Meiji army disproved that. 




> This is in many ways like the TMA vs. MMA arguments, etc.or my dad is better than your dad.  Just in this case we will never know because they did not go to battle against each other.  One thing is for sure if they did both sides would re-evaluate their strategies quickly and formulate plans accordingly.  Both groups were great warriors in their time frame!



I wouldn't say its like the TMA vs MMA arguments. Those arguments are far more entertaining.....

But yes, I agree with you. With that, I'm hopping out of this conversation. 14th century European and Asian history bores the piss out of me.


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 21, 2014)

I remember there being a demonstration of the Japanese bow at the Royal Armouries last time I was there, I think I might make a visit in the next week or so and check out what bows they have and what they think.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Sep 21, 2014)

*Clarifying so that we are on the same page*: I certainly was not claiming that the Samurai armor was bullet proof. (that is ridiculous)   Yoroi was specifically designed to deal with arrows.  It certainly had capabilities because of it's layers to work like a modern bullet proof vest and provide protection against earlier firearms and even *at times* stop bullets from early fire arms.  Yet, certainly as firearms improved and they improved very quickly it was rendered useless against them.  *Just like all early armor*.  Even modern firearm armor is not some thing I wish to stake my life on.


----------



## mook jong man (Sep 21, 2014)

I think the main point everybody is missing here is , how would the English War dogs have fared against the Japanese Tiger cavalry.
The classic rivalry between canine and feline , how would that scenario have played out on the ancient battlefield.
These are the questions I think that need to be answered.


----------



## Badger1777 (Sep 22, 2014)

As patriotic as I am, historically speaking, England's (and later Britain's) success in warfare is based on 3 factors:

1. A long history of conflict between the various factions that have occupied our small island over the centuries, leaving Britain as a whole 'battle hardened' (not necessarily individuals, but collectively we have a lot of experience of warfare, which I guess is why our American buddies always ask our lads and lasses to lend a hand

2. Being an island nation, we kind of had to develop a good navy, and much of that navy was used for piracy (Elizabeth the 1st used to pay sailors to go stealing, but they were under strict rules not to fly any flags or standards that linked them to England, and the official line was that anyone found guilty would be executed). So England, and Britain as a whole, became rich enough to pay for good military.

3. Alliances in Europe through diplomacy including through marriage, combined with the ability to pay our way, and the aforementioned willingness towards state sanctioned theft, meant we got to take over much of the planet for a while.

So who would have won if the Brits and the Japanese had clashed? The Brits. The Brits could pay for extra help along the way, and would have had the money and influence to bring a huge number of oppressed Chinese on board, who hated the Japanese anyway. Quite simply, we would have been able to drum up better support and most importantly, better local support.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Sep 22, 2014)

Badger1777 said:


> As patriotic as I am, historically speaking, England's (and later Britain's) success in warfare is based on 3 factors:
> 
> 1. A long history of conflict between the various factions that have occupied our small island over the centuries, leaving Britain as a whole 'battle hardened' (not necessarily individuals, but collectively we have a lot of experience of warfare, which I guess is why our American buddies always ask our lads and lasses to lend a hand
> 
> ...




Fully agree with all but one point; this one



> The Brits could pay for extra help along the way, and would have had the money and influence to bring a *huge number of oppressed Chinese o*n board, who hated the Japanese anyway



Since the post is talking "Ancient times" the Chinese were not oppressed by Japan nor did they hate them in ancient times, had some issues with Japanese Pirates, but that is about it. That oppression by the Japanese and dislike of them starts to appear around the late 1800s but that comes an equal dislike for most western powers including the Brits. But the actual dislike of the Japanese (over western powers) really starts to ramp up at the end of the Qing Dynasty (early 1900s) and goes full on hatred pre-World War II until the present.


----------

