Samurai vs European footmen.

[Giaur]

Someone told me that Samurai unit would destroy any European footman unit on the battlefield. I guess it would be difficult to arange this fight, not only because of the distance but also Samurai rarely appeared on the battlefield. But I agree with that opinion that it would be slaughering. If I am wrong in any sentence, correct me.

 

[Greeneyedzombie]

Someone told me that Samurai unit would destroy any European footman unit on the battlefield. I guess it would be difficult to arange this fight, not only because of the distance but also Samurai rarely appeared on the battlefield. But I agree with that opinion that it would be slaughering. If I am wrong in any sentence, correct me.

your absolutly wrong.
considering that both where about equally trained in warfare and fighting skill.
samurai did appear a lot on the battlefield. in fact for most of the time they where the only one to appear on the battlefield in feudal japan together with massed infantry armed with spears. they dissapeared on the battlefield during the shogunate. when there was peace and fighting forbidden by the shogun. and samurai made an elite class wich you coud only enter by birth.

the only battle between western and japanese troops turned out to be a slaughter of japanes troops. cause the refused gunpowder weapons.
pre gunpowder the troops had similair weapons and training.

edit: btw, the main weapon of the samurai was the bow on horse back, and the spear. just like knights where on horse back and the main weapon was mostly axes or maces. both rarely fought on foot.

 

[DigitalBoy]

Your friend sounds wapanese. More than anything else, when people say stuff like that, I'm thinking it's because they are caught up in some sort of absurd fanboy mentality (OHMYGOD, teh ninjaz r awsom). The samurai were probably skilled fighters, but I wouldn't try and compare them to Keano Reeves.

 

[potatokiosk]

I wouldn't be surprised if Samurais were of higher quality than European infantry, nor would I be surprised if a European knight could easily outperform a Japanese soldier on horseback from the era.

 

[shyuhe]

comparing samurais and European foot soldiers is a little apples and oranges... I don't think you'll get a conclusive answer either way. Assuming you're talking pre-gunpowder, the Japanese weaponry was better than European weaponry but that's not enough to equal "kick ass in the battlefield".

Greeneyedzombie, Japanese swords cut much better than the European counterparts that were more bludgeon than cut. There was some TV special that was done a few years ago where they shot a magnum bullet at a katana to see what would happen. You'd be surprised at the results (bullet sliced in half). I will try to dig up a link to it.

Edit: Sorry, wrong gun. It was done with a Colt M1911A1 (0.45 inch). It was later tested against an M2 (0.5 inch/12.7mm) against which the katana lasted through six bullets but broke against the 7th. After reading more, I'll have to partially retract my earlier statements since the first test wasn't very fair against the colt - the bullets apparently sucked. The second one is a little more convincing but I'm no gun expert so feel free to prove me wrong.

 

[gettingfat]

Samurai were in fact the elite forces in the battlefield. Before Tokugawa officially united Japan, Samurai were mostly mounted and well-armored warriors well trained with using both spear and bow/arrows. They used katana mostly in close-quarter combat or fighting on their feet. After the end of Warlord era sumurai were no longer strongly needed for their battlefield performance, so they shifted their focus on swordmanship, and wore plain clothes as armors were not required anymore.

Comparing medieval European units and east Asian units is a very difficult and probably meaningless task, as the concept of warfare is totally different. East Asian countries frequently had large scale battles involving up to a million of soldiers (especially in China). Missile attack was also much more emphasized (story like 300 likely won't happen. The much more powerful crossbows would finish them off) . In those situations individual strength becomes secondary to organization, discipline, tactics, war planning and logistics. It wouldn't surprise me at all if 1 well equipped and trained knight could beat 1 sumurai, 1 Keshik or 1 Chinese mounted warrior, but I bet 1000 sumurai would beat 1000 knights.

 

[DrewBledsoe]

As someone said earlier, the Japanese (for various reasons) were much later than Europe in adopting gunpowder weapons. In many ways, Japan was still in the equivalent of the European "middle ages" during the 18th century.

Katanas are probably the best swords ever made, but even if they could stand up to .50 cal bullets (which they couldn't) the wielder would be long dead before the sword got anywhere near someone with a rifle (they're not really like they are in the movies guys )

This reminded me of another point. I was recently reading yet another book on WWII weaponry, this time illustrating Japanese guns and rifles. You know that Japanese LMG (Light Machine Guns) and HMG, were as standard fitted with a large bayonet? As if they're leaders somehow pictured the gunner grabbing a v weighty cumbersome machine gun, and charging the enemy. Erm, guys it fires bullets, it's not a big sword.....

Probably differences in culture and customs, but they never really "got" the idea of guns.

 

[Breunor]

I'm mostly with gettingfat, but real life is complciated .....

The Samurai trained as specialists in hand-to-hand combat. But in practice, horse archery was powerful and in battles they fought mostly on horseback with bows; of course, they could fight in hand-to-hand combat and in ceremonial combats.

For the most part, the Elite combat troops of Western Europe were knights, trained to fight not with bows but with shock on horseback. Europe, of course, did have hand-to-hand troops. They had Seargents at-arms, which were well trained, but not with the training to match the Samurai in general.

The best footsoldiers of the Medieval period were the Swiss pikemen, who were often viewed as invincible. Pikemen fought IN FORMATION -- take a pikeman alone, his lack of ability to move laterally or defend behind will be telling, but in formation, they were a terror.

So, the question, without context, is silly:


A samurai, in an arena, was well trained, probably better than a Sergeant at arms

Using their weapons, a Samurai's sword was far superior to anything in the west. However, a dismoutned knight also learned to fight in hand-to-hand combat, but probably 2/3 of his training was fighting on horseback. conversely, his heavy armor may protect against the cutting surface of the samurai sword. So, a dismounted knight with REALLY GOOD armor like plate-mail will be tough to take. Even with chainmail, a samurai sword may not the right weapon to defeat it, but the samurai would be tough then.

On horseback, knights vs. Samurai is simply archers against shock. The samurai could fight with shock, but they didn't train at it like the Western knights.

Against pikemen, if the samurai were on foot, their training wouldn't help. In formation,the pikemen were very strong. If the samurai fought the pikemen one-on-one, the samurai would slaighter them.


Remember the samurai against the Mongols. The Mongols were doomed because they were caught on the beach and couldn't sue their mobility, but they still caused disproporationate losses because they fought in formation.

Best wishes,

Breunor

 

[Giaur]

When I was talking of footman, I meant soldiers fighting on feet, not horseman. And also I meant pregunpowder combat.

I did not studied history beyond that taught in school. Someone told me that in Japan ruled some sort of caste system. Samurai were privilaged group.

They would not have put Samurai's fighting with katanas into game, if they had not these weapons at all. It's interesting to hear that Samurai fought with spears too. But everywere in the world Samarui are bound with these swords.

Crossbows might be efficient to stop certain number of Samurai's, but 1000 crossbows will perish due to Samurai's attack.

 

[Greeneyedzombie]

comparing samurais and European foot soldiers is a little apples and oranges... I don't think you'll get a conclusive answer either way. Assuming you're talking pre-gunpowder, the Japanese weaponry was better than European weaponry but that's not enough to equal "kick ass in the battlefield".

Greeneyedzombie, Japanese swords cut much better than the European counterparts that were more bludgeon than cut. There was some TV special that was done a few years ago where they shot a magnum bullet at a katana to see what would happen. You'd be surprised at the results (bullet sliced in half). I will try to dig up a link to it.

Edit: Sorry, wrong gun. It was done with a Colt M1911A1 (0.45 inch). It was later tested against an M2 (0.5 inch/12.7mm) against which the katana lasted through six bullets but broke against the 7th. After reading more, I'll have to partially retract my earlier statements since the first test wasn't very fair against the colt - the bullets apparently sucked. The second one is a little more convincing but I'm no gun expert so feel free to prove me wrong.

your wrong about the swords. Yes they have found blunt swords. both japanese and european. it all depended on the quallity and for whom it was made. The function of the sword and design. They have found european swords as sharp as razor edges. The most important difference between japanese high quality swords and european high quality swords is the hardness of the swords. Europe about 48/52 rockwell. japan about 58/62 rockwell. this is all because of the design of the sword.

@Bruenor both knight and samurai trained in hand to hand combat. actually the european martial arts book are much older than the japanese one. and when you compare them you see much simularities in them. same arm locks, hip throwing. etc.
the swiss pikeman where very mobile. you should train with a group in pike formation and you will be surprised how fast you can change direction and formation.

 

[DigitalBoy]

I did not studied history beyond that taught in school. Someone told me that in Japan ruled some sort of caste system. Samurai were privilaged group.

If I remember correctly, the samurai was not a caste until a ruler decreed that no one could become a samurai if they were not born into the class. I think this was about the same time that samurai were phasing out of combat because of an extended period of peace which lessened demand for warrior samurai.

 

[Breunor]

Thanks Greeneyed!

Yes, I do know the Swiss pikemen were mobile, I didn't mean to imply otherwise. I was trying to say that a pike army was powerful in formation, less so as individuals.

Interesting about the similar techniques. I know knights trained on foot, but I did think that the horseback training was more prominant. It may depend on the period and the area.

Best wishes,

Breunor

 

[Greeneyedzombie]

If I remember correctly, the samurai was not a caste until a ruler decreed that no one could become a samurai if they were not born into the class. I think this was about the same time that samurai were phasing out of combat because of an extended period of peace which lessened demand for warrior samurai.

the samurai have always been a caste. the warrior caste. everyone with a sword was called a samurai. some where lords, other just warrior families. When the shogunate came to power it was changed to an elite status only wich you could only enter by birth and it became a cast of nobility like the nobles in europe. and from that on they where the only ones allowed to where swords.

Thanks Greeneyed!

Yes, I do know the Swiss pikemen were mobile, I didn't mean to imply otherwise. I was trying to say that a pike army was powerful in formation, less so as individuals.

Interesting about the similar techniques. I know knights trained on foot, but I did think that the horseback training was more prominant. It may depend on the period and the area.

Best wishes,

Breunor

your correct. for both knights and samurai the sword and horse riding was considered the most importent. although the sword was only used in war as a last resort. the sword was more a symbol, while other weapons where more effective. But it doesn't do for both to be killed by peasents on foot.
I know about these techniques only because I'm studying midivel fighting techniques. and the only way to learn them is from these old manuscripts. unfortunatly most are destroyed. The funny thing is that the oldest manuscript in europe is written by a monk. What is it with monks and fighting?
I think they have to much free time.

 

[Breunor]

Green,

Thanks for the info!

Its good when even older geezers like me can learn things!

Best wishes,

Breunor

 

[Holycannoli]

It would be interesting to see a samurai duel 1v1 against a european warrior trained in parry & riposte.

Don't discount the european martial arts! In fact Bruce Lee based a lot of his personal martial art on eurpoean parry & riposte.

 

[Greeneyedzombie]

It would be interesting to see a samurai duel 1v1 against a european warrior trained in parry & riposte.QUOTE]

parry & riposte is the basics of any sword fight. or are you talking about fencing? and what kind of "fencing" are we talking about?

 

[Greeneyedzombie]

@holycannoli
maybey this will answer your question. if it is about rapier versus katana
http://www.thearma.org/essays/katanavs.htm

 

[King Flevance]

@holycannoli
maybey this will answer your question. if it is about rapier versus katana
http://www.thearma.org/essays/katanavs.htm

That was an awesome read.

 

[Idlenessss]

Throughout history, the 'caucasian' europeans proved themselves to have a lust for warfare and death which completely outmatched and outclassed all of the more civilized nations. The europeans were the last people to become civilized, and they were the only people who truly understood the 'berzerkanger' mentality. Their only issue with war was the needs to organized large masses of people, they were infamously disorganized, but im fairly confident that as individual skill is concerned, your average japanese samurai is going to be completely outmatched by the earlier europeans.
Its a completely moot point however, as by the time Japan was at the height of its feudal organization, europe had finially become quite civilized, and there is plenty of evidence that japanese samurai performed very poorly against highly organised gundowper infantry.
In short, my understanding of history is that the 'europeans', for the period of their introduction to history via waves of mindless assaults into mesopotamia from the Caucus, to around the time of the Rennasiance, were by far the most cruel and warlike people in the world, and although this is no compliment to them, as individual fighters i doubt anyone could stand up tp them man for man.

 

[Idlenessss]

I read this article which was posted, and oddly enough what the writer is saying is compeltely contrary to my own understanding. The katana was NEVER a two handed sword, and the japanese samurai typically used two swords, a longer and shorter one, simultaneously. the two handed sword was much older than the katana, and was from a perior period to the actual samurais. The soldiers who used a katana were used to it as a primary weapon, while the rapier was a secondary weapon for soldiers who were used to a musket and probably were uncomfortable with in-fighting. The strength of the rapier was not so much is ability on the battlefeild so much as the fact that you could carry one while still running around with a musket.