Europeans are so lucky Japan didn't want to conquer them they would get slaughtered...

Why can we only talk about Asian history in threads like this?

Threadly reminder that the Japanese had to invade Korea in order to land troops and their first invasion was btfo'd by an admiral who never had naval training until his first naval battle and even with 13 damaged ship he epically btfo'd a fleet much bigger than his with sheer smarts, knowledge of the terrain he was fighting on and sheer balls.

MUH SUPERIOR NIPPON

DIVINE WIND! REMEMBER THE MONGOLS!

How the fuck would the chinese nationalists be a good ally against the soviets?

>Portuguese sailors slaughtered the samurai in duels
Bullshit.

There's a similar law in China, and that's because Portuguese were rowdy niggers and were into Piracy during their first stint in Asia.

That behaviour got them severely BTFO.

They couldn't. They just enslaved the chinks to do it for them.

>severely BTFO

You missed the point: Nips dragged Germany into a war with the United States with their antics.

>implying Htiler wouldn't have lost eventually anyways.

I was talking of China you idiot.
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tunmen
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Xicaowan

The Portuguese were enslaving East Asians left and right. So the Chinese got pissed off with them and ended their presence in China. They were only allowed back under severe conditions in 1540, this time in Macao.

And along with that is "No Portuguese would carry weapons while in Mainland China.

I regret to inform you friendo that what said is a big misconception. If Japan were to attack Europe they might see initial success ( because of muh shock factor) but they would be quickly beat back and most likely destroyed. Katanas cannot cut through plate armor. I would even bet that it can't cut through riveted mail. Also there were several cases where rapiers were able to out maneuver the heavier katanas( this lead to the creation of lighter katanas designed to fight rapiers).

Also friendo I forgot to add using Deadliest warrior as a source is asking for a bad time. Shows like that are often times not focused on historical accuracy and are designed more for entertainment purposes you want to learn some real history try watching The Mettatron on YT he is a very intelligent and very objective voice on the samurai vs knight debate

>Samurai vs knight debate
>Intelligent

That's a good one.

>Katanas cannot cut through plate armor.
Hopefully, at the end of the 16th century, the shogun army tended to have roughly 2/3 to 3/4 of troops carrying guns... and some had katana, but mainly they had individual guns and those eventually go through plate armor (eventually).
Also, arming swords and sideswords can't go through plate armor either so...

Samurai vs Knight
Ninja vs Assassin
Meiji vs Peter

An endless debate

>deadliest warrior
Oi I'm laughin'

>knight
>ninja
>who

easy

PEARL HARBOUR WAS AN INSIDE JOB~~~!!!!!!!11111

Hoax alike to Moon Landing or 9/11
For Moon Landing see specifically: Book of Mormon and Book of Veles, similar hoax - Copy of a suppossed original is all we own, kek.

If Russian Empire was led by Peter the Great (rather than that inefficient reptilian kike doppelganger of George V), would it have won with Nips of Meiji?
Could Russian Vityaz strike down the Samurai? Note that both would be fully equitted.

>we

They could, why do you think Huns were known from their usage of battering rams and besieging?

Xiongnu and Xianbei/Donghu people used to be part of the same thing, you know.

>Germany allies with Japan.
>Japan attacks USA.
>USA declares war on Axis.
What exactly is conspiracyshit here?

And where did they get those guns? Yes, Europe.

European swords were much better at stabbing into those kinks in the armor. And also had pommels and cross guards good for, well, pummeling. So overall arming swords would be at least a little effective against plate. Much much better than any katana.

Just watch the video

And that doesn't even get into how much better European armor actually was for defense in general.

>And where did they get those guns? Yes, Europe.
They only get the design from europe (nice enough), they had a national factory not even ten years after the introduction of guns, so yep most of the guns (if not all) from the korean invasion were domestically made.

>And where did they get those guns? Yes, Europe.
Actually no, they had the design from Europe but all guns were made domestically, considering they had a national gun factory in the mid-1500's...

I would argue that having the ability to field a 75% gun army is more important than having slightly better sidearm against some specific heavy armor but well.

Newfags Eurocentrists don't know of chinese gunpowder and Fire Lancers

Shh, baka

>replying to b8

The theory that FDR knew that the attack was coming but did nothing to stop it because he wanted to go to war and knew this would get him in.

thearma.org/essays/knightvs.htm#.VyC7kWkRXqB

Threadly reminder.

FDR and the rest of the States were aware of "an attack" that would come. What they expected was an attack that would strike literally ANYWHERE BUT AMERICA.

There was also a mutual cultural misunderstanding from both sides. FDR genuinely did not know that Japan would strike at Pearl Harbor, considering that both of them were in talks, and Japan did not care about tge fact that they would be, in effect, getting fucked despite sending two of their staff officers to the fucking States and having them literally seing the industrial capacity America was famed for.

That's what I meant. Without the European design they wouldn't have the factory in the first place.

When I said that they got guns from Europe, I meant guns as in the design. Not that Europe literally supplied them with guns.

this rapiers are the best unarmored duel weapon
>we
oh boy that opinion is sure not biased and not butthurt talk

Umm last time I checked China =/= Japan.

Europeans had guns before Japan. Why wouldn't they already be using them more?

The swords were also better against samurai armor, sense we like to compare swords here.

Newsflash: Japan had Chinese gunpowder weapons like bombs and rockets. They know what the stuff was. They were using it in catapults for sieges and since early Nip Castles were just these wooden things on earthworks, they were dreadfully effective

Its just that they were using 1200's outdated shit. They missed out on the cannons and the handegonnes invented in China at the time.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fukuda_Bay

weeaboo shit

That's a naval battle, though. The Japanese weren't known for naval combat in the Sengoku period and they were soundly defeated by the Koreans/Chinese.

It would've been a different story on the ground.

Umm we're talking about firearms right? Yeah they both use gunpowder but they really aren't the same. They had gunpowder but they didn't even really have that until after Europe did. I mean, still Japan doesn't even come close to being in the same level as China in that technology.

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fukuda_Bay
>Naval battle
>Premodern Japan
Literally anyone can beat nips at naval combat.

Prior the modern age they were quite bad at it.

Fact is Japan was extremely quick to adopt guns and they were much more enthusiastic than the Europeans who were a bit more "it's quite cool but we still need cavalry and stuff". The fact that they didn't had to do all the r&d from the handgonne to the matchlock is probably for something, but comparatively to the 16th century (not the same political configuration but still), Japan had bigger armies with a greater ratio of guns, that is after the end of the feudal war, by Toyotomi era (late XVIth). Just because you invent something doesn't mean you know best how to use it (not to say that the japanese did knew best, it was probably better here, worse there, roughly equivalent).

Anyway, in the grand schemes of things, I'd still agree it's irrelevant, it would have been impossible for either the europeans or the japanese to "invade" one another, they were way too far from each other and the technological gap wasn't big enough to compensate (like it could help with the indians for instance). Besides Japan had an absolutely terrible navy, even with their battle-hardened foot soldiers, I doubt they would have fair better than any europeans involved in the italian wars for instance.

Why would you try to cut through plate armor with any sword?

The chinese were forced to evacuate their entire coastline because Japanese pirates kept reking them so bad.

Yeah, the did keep cavalry, but not exactly for no reason. Even though Japan adopted firearms quickly, they still didn't even have it until quite a bit later. So it kind of depends on what time we're looking at.

Yeah the whole debate is pretty pointless. There's no way that Japan would be able to conquer all of Europe.

This was posted about a month or so ago. Fuck off with your bait.

>Even though Japan adopted firearms quickly, they still didn't even have it until quite a bit later.
They went from nothing to 50000 guns in the shogun army in something like one generation. That's not bad at all. They had guns in the hundreds of thousands in something like a quarter of a century at that was during the feudal era were there wasn't a central authority. So they got there really really fast.

They did it again in the Meiji era were they went from "sorta very late middle ages" to "we can beat a major european nation" in less than fifty years. Japan can be very very quick... sometimes.

Now the debate is still moot, the europeans clearly didn't want to invade Japan, otherwise they certainly would have - the 16th century was clearly not a period were the europeans were peace-loving creatures. And Japan with their terrible terrible navy couldn't even invade Korea so...

Ridiculous pretense oh and terrible image for starting a "japan stronk" thread for that matter.

Mongols had no problems conducting siege warfare. They were quite good at it actually

This entire thing is a troll someone knows there are people with hate boners over samurai that will be triggered by the suggestion, so he posts his strawman, and then people who hate samurai respond with hyperbole, and a shit storm ensues

> severely btfo
> two poorly recorded, minor naval battles that just ended up with politics
Severely btfo would be opium war

Once I thought Nippon was the shit. Then I read Chinese history.

Yeah, they were very quick, and are a very great nation. But they still didn't get the technology until a bit after China, Europe, and such.

>soundly defeated

See Ryukyu. It was in essence Sino-Japan.

Yes, even when Japan was "closed to the world" it STILL kept contact with China.

True, weren't Koreans famed from their use of Hwacha?
That is aside later Turtle Ships. Honestly no idea why they got "War Wagons" in AoEII, they were a last-minute addition (replacing Khmers), I wonder if they wanted to give it to planned Slav nation and just reused assets.

china WAS the greatest

comparatively speaking knights and samurai were just "cool"

Hey, remember when Dealiest Warrior did Shaolin Monk vs. Maori, and they gave the Monk the shittiest weapons possible to make it competitive because the Maori literally had rocks and sticks and shit?

Yeah.

Maori are the best warriors in the world. They used green stone (best material for making weapons) and the bones of their enemies.

Monks had robes and bees.

>Also there were several cases where rapiers were able to out maneuver the heavier katanas( this lead to the creation of lighter katanas designed to fight rapiers).
Rapiers were actually about as heavy as katana. People generally underestimate their weight.

However, they were also quite a bit longer than katana.

The tachi of that perod would have been a few centimeters shorter than a rapier, but they also would have been heavier than a modern katana, since they were built to survive heavier stresses

The rapier definitely would have had an advantage over a normal Japanese sword in a one on one duel

The Japanese were actually scared of the spanish who at the time could pretty much anyone up. The turks, the americas, the dutch, the French, other spanish. Never forget the tercios

>Yes, even when Japan was "closed to the world" it STILL kept contact with China.
So why the fuck did Japan insist on Tang dynasty dress code and beauty standards for well over a thousand years?
Surely they would have noticed how laughably outdated they looked in comparison to mainlanders at some point.

Don't mock it till you try it friendo.

Uh didn't China look down upon Japan?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1582_Cagayan_battles

They also kind of abandoned guns...

And the outside world in general

They didn't so much abandon guns as they kept them locked up. Whenever the peasants rebelled they would unlock them and mow the peasants down

The thin blade is what makes them deadly.

>pirates raiding villages is the same as naval warfare
>wokou were Japanese
No.

Remember even when Japan BTFO 90% of China's production, the Nationalists was still more self sufficent than Japan. China, even when in a civil war, was more capable of fighting the Soviet and Allies in Asia. The only downside were shitty equipment and officals, which Germany were helping to improve.
Or they could have continued to deliver goods to Germany, which Japan promised but never deliverd after conquring parts of China.

The nationalists could have been the most usefull ally to Germany, however, they would probably never be much of use because they would most likly fight Japan thruout the war, unless German officals and aid somehow turned the tide against Japan before 1941.

TL;DR
Nationalists
+Will give you goods
+Is willing to aid against the Soviet
+Will send expeditonary forces
+Has lots of resources
-Warlords
-Has only 300 000 modern equiped and trained troops

Japan
-Will cripple one of your allies
-will not send supplies
-will not send expeditonary forces
-factionalism
-----Will cease all of your economic activites in China.
-----------will demand stuff from you, will never do you any favors

Funny you mentioned Wokou.
>1300s-1400's
>Wokou were mostly Japanese
>BTFO easily
>1500's Wokou
>Mostly Chinese.
>An actual fucking threat the dealing of which became a military effort.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wokou#Later_wokou
"According to the History of Ming, thirty percent of the 16th century wokou were Japanese, seventy percent were ethnic Chinese.[14][15][16][17]"
"Because of the extent of corruption in the Ming court, many Chinese officials actually had relations with the pirates and benefited from the piracy, making it difficult for central authorities to control."

The reason why they were still called Wokou was
1) Wokou was a term equivalent to being called a terrorist at the time. Since the past term for pirates was "Japanese" it simply stuck. The same reason why all Central Asian nomads were "Tartar"to Medieval Europe.
2) NO GUD CHINESE BOI WILL DO DAT SHIT. THEY GOOD BOIS DOIN NUFFIN WRONG. MUST BE JAPANESE, THEY USUALLY DO THIS.

Correct me if I am wrong, but they were primarily using Japanese arms to fight.

Not that the japanese were not shitty naval fighters, I think that's pretty well supported

The Wokou were primarily using *everything* to fight. They probably have a mishmash of Asian equipment. Japanese swords just stood out because they were well made.

Furthermore, you see, the Chinese- thanks to their eternal shitfights with the Nomads for much of 900's-1300's laid down their two hander longswords like the Shuang Shou Jian or the Changdao. They favored single handed swords which could be used on horseback and could be used by primarily spear wielding/bow wielding infantry. When the Japs pirates came swinging at them with their two handed swords the Chinks were suddenly "we really need to have our own two handers back."

So two things happened
1) Native Chinese two handed swords came back.
2) Chinese used/copied Japanese swords as well.

>we

Damn bro, how old are you?

>experts from Deadliest Warrior agree

Generally yes.

This is cringier than OP's post tbqh