Could an army of samurai have defeated an army of Romans?

Could an army of samurai have defeated an army of Romans?

Other urls found in this thread:

reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5g3e55/how_was_cavalry_used_in_japan_during_the_sengoku/
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

When is this samurai army from?

Romans and Samurai are both from the 15th century

Samurai weren´t conquerors, they couldn´t even invade korea

You. I like you.

Korea got absolutely blown the fuck out and had to be saved by China.

Considering samurai had guns, I'm going to say them.

>competent military versus meme warriors

boy i wonder

Could a combined force of samurai and Romans defeat Mike Tyson?

samurai have guns

wait who is the competent military and who are the meme warriors?

with or without katana/legion meme?

>some ritual fags sputting "muh singular combat" facing mixed-martial-arts though guys who do not mind to fight in team
clearly romans

Samurai fought themselves mostly. Then they tried taking Korea's shit and got slapped around by steppe niggers. The only reason they're so revered is because butthurt samurai in the post-Sengoku period starting puffing up the image of samurai to make their own weak asses look better.

The Romans fought half a fucking continent and then some while fighting themselves for centuries.

>samurai
>muh singular combat

yeah and all knights were chivalrous right?

Which Romans?

no it was because the guys masturbating to Samurai almost took over the Pacific Ocean and had to be nuked to be completely put down

Both are overrated warriors constantly wanked off by neckbeards that know nothing about how military works.

I'm going to choose the Samurai because they have guns.

The ones who lived in Rome.

but the Orsini sucked

No you are mistaken. Samurai would have taken over the WHORLD if OTHER samurai hadnt been fighting them. It proves that only SAMUEAI can match samurai

Lot of military developed well with fighting themselves

like how the Phalanx developed due to wars mostly between Greek Polises
and likewise the Legions came about through wars between Italian state

We'll never know how efficient they truly were since Japs couldn't into navy at that time.

Yes, Sengoku Jidai era samurai had centuries of innovations under their belt, they would have a definite advantage. However it would not be overwhelming, in some situations the Romans might win.

>Rome
>15th century
user.........

Romans sucked against horse archers

>like how the Phalanx developed due to wars mostly between Greek Polises
A big part of Alexander's success was the Macedonian cavalry which was absent from other Greek armies and developed from their wars with the Scythians.

>and likewise the Legions came about through wars between Italian state
The Romans originally used Greek-style phalanxes but adopted the gladius and maniple formation in response to the Gallic invasions.

Samurai mostly fought themselves but they were very aware of military doctrines and weapons from the continent.

Also The samurai had a pretty fierce reputation throughout east Asian seas.

>Japan
>Good reputation at sea

Their only large victory at sea ever as Tsushima and at that battle the Russian fleet was a complete joke.

There reputation as warriors rather than seamen,

I think he's referring to wako pirates, who did have a decent reputation.

Japan most likely.

samefag here. I fucking need to learn to read.

Fuck off old man

>A big part of Alexander's success was the Macedonian cavalry which was absent from other Greek armies and developed from their wars with the Scythians.
Except that's fucking wrong. Thessaly was absolutely full of fuckign cavalry, with the national sport being leaping off a horse and wrestling a bull to the ground, and thessaly is the inspiration for Macedonian cavalry. Fuck, they were even given a place of honor in the line, being regarded as excellent cavalry second only to the Macedonians themselves.


>The Romans originally used Greek-style phalanxes but adopted the gladius and maniple formation in response to the Gallic invasions.
Literally nobody knows when or why the change occurred.The Romans themselves had multiple explanations.

All of them
Japs were closed in their little island, and the only real fight they saw was mostly about massacring defenseless peasants. It's just retarded to compare them with guys, who actually fought wars against different cultures.

KEK
Are we speaking about the same guys? Yes, actually exist one thing, in which they sucked harder than in making armours and weapons. Pic related.

Again, not talking about their navel battles but their reputations as fighters who would sometimes travel in boats

It's cute that both of these images were used in R. G. Grant's Warriors, which I loved as a kid. I even brought in into the dentist's room once.

Realistically, an army of "Samurai" as we know them today would wipe the floor with the Romans. No matter how superior their group tactics were for the most part, you can't beat a enemy one thousand years ahead of you in terms of military technology.

That kind of samurai was dead and buried by the Sengoku Jidai.

The samurai were still strong fighters in the sengoku. are you sure you dont mean Edo?

I meant the relatively (compared to Romans and later Samurai) lightly armored Samurai who would fight on boats or with a bow on horseback as well as he would with a sword.
Even then that image was embellished by folklore and writings like the Tale of Genji.

Well its true that by the sengoku they began to transition to heavy armored infantry tactics, but there were still many bows and horsemen

>in some situations the Romans might win

No shit, this can be said about any battle which is why threads like this are often considered silly.

Battles are determined by tons of factors before the armies ever meet on the field. The logistics, the training, the manpower, the terrain, the commanders, etc.

If you change these variables then anybody can win. But just looking at a totally neutral comparison, the samurai had a bear 1500 gap in innovation that simply can't be ignored.

this

in fortified positions the Legions with their defensive based formations would probably curbstomp the samurai

On the other hand given that Samurai were originally horse Archers you can easily see a scenario like the Parthians and the Huns from them. Especially since they have rifles and can just unload volley after volley on the Legions not really known for their speed.

Then yes, the Kaiserliche und Königliche Armee could have beaten samurais.

>Defensive positions

Wouldn't really work if we're talking late Sengoku Jidai Japs. They had cannons by that point. Against a static enemy they'd just have to sit back and shoot fish in a barrel.

which of course shows the other problem of the thread. The fact that Romans and Samurai kept changing over the course of their history


this shows it for the Romans but even the samurai changed significantly throughout the ages. If we even include the "in name only" guys there's HRE vs. 19th century Japan (who kinda were conquerors)

;) that calendar though.

Didn't like 40 spanish beat the shit out of like 1000 samurai?

There were navel battles where the samurai and pirates did quit poorly, but that had more to do with guns, cannons and shitty boats the Japanese were using

>thinks all horse archers operate the same way
Pls go and stay go

>you can't beat a enemy one thousand years ahead of you in terms of military technology
1000 years ahead in fucking what? They lived 1000 years later, but they were on Celts level technology wise. Well, if only Celts have fought with Romans.
>Checks Something
>Oh
They only strength the Japanese would have, it would be cavalry.

I assume you mean a Roman army after the Marian reforms. So like AD 100 or so, right?

Let's assume equal size, and equal competency in commanders relative to their own experience (meaning against other forces for their time, obviously).

I would give it to the Romans.

Someone stupid here is going to mention cavalry, which is why I am going to shut them up by teaching them a lesson.

Believe it or not, the Romans had in their repertoire good cavalry... It just wasn't Roman. They used auxiliary soldiers in almost equal number to the Legions (and their small cavalry detachments). Each legion only had 128 cavalrymen. Which is staggeringly small when you figure the ratio of heavy infantry to cavalry, but this bit of information is deceptive.

The Romans actually utilized a shit load of cavalry by of the aforementioned auxiliary soldiers. The average number of legions assigned to a prefect was three. If we are going with fully stocked legions, we're looking at roughly 15,000 men on foot. This is minus their cavalry, and minus any auxiliaries they may have had. Most legions had auxiliary cohorts attached to them equal or greater number around this time period. So that's another 15,000 men. Now we get into the cavalry.

From the information I've seen, in a large scale military battle it was not uncommon for there to be at least four detachments of ala assigned to legionary armies of this size. This is about 2,000 men. Sprinkle the Roman cavalry on top, and you come out with about 2,500~ cavalry. I should also point out that the foot auxiliaries in this situation could very well be partially comprised of bowmen and/or slingers. This is not altogether unheard of, and the Celtic bowmen running during Crassus' campaign against the Parthians is one of the main reasons his army was obliterated.

The Romans were also very smart in that they'd much rather lose an auxiliary's life than a Roman's.

(1/2)

Reddit

They would often open their battles by sending in the auxiliaries footmen first, supported by any ranged units they may have had. It wasn't unheard for battles to be won entirely by the auxiliaries while the Legions looked on and picked their noses. Think of them as the hastati of the Mid-Republican army.

Anyway. Depending on how this went down, the auxiliaries would disengage after a period of fighting and the Legions would step forth to replace them. All the while the cavalry would be harassing the enemy's own in skirmishes. If the enemy cavalry got to close, they would get mowed down by the ranged units. This tactic is how Caesar almost lost Alesia, so the Romans adopted it.

Eventually they would be an insane clash of men. For a second time, as the auxiliaries had already done it the first time. Normally this had the effect of spurring the Legions on to outperform the auxiliaries. Because really, who wanted to be shown up by a bunch of barbarians in some foreign province?

Generally speaking, the auxiliaries were also only slightly less armed and armored than your average legionary, but sometimes they were better off. Particularly in the cavalry department. This would make them quite formidable against any army. Especially since it wouldn't be until like 5th century that the samurai started wearing armor made predominately of iron as opposed to leather. And even that was extremely primitive in comparison to the Roman's. So I will be nice and say that we're looking at around the 12th century AD.

If you want to start bringing in the Senguko period and later, then I will merely reply with the reformed military of the Byzantines, and they will lose even harder.

Are these holy Romans, kebabs, eastern romans, or finno-ugric

>Someone stupid here is going to mention cavalry

actually they are going to mention canons and rifles which later period samurai had and late century Byzantines kinda lost to (they were weakened though).

It's weird

Samurai are currently the "meme army" because of the constant wanking and "perfect army that can do know wrong" bullshit that that people are now attributing to the legions.

Veeky Forums gives shit to the British Empire and Alexander the great for merely being opportunist picking on weak foes despite the Romans being the same way. Their formations were all about exploiting the flaws of the phalanx which was pretty much the standard of classical period armies and the few that didn't have it were exactly the disorganized armies that formations like the phalanx itself was created to curbstomp making all the armies Rome fought against horribly outdated. Which is the main reason why people like the Parthians and the Germanics managed to kick their asses several times since they were the only few guys interested in modernizing their shit.

saying a 1 century AD army can wipe the floor with a 16th century army is only said by the type of people that believe the Legions can even wipe the floor with medieval knights.

>all the armies Rome fought against horribly outdated.

ok saying "all" is a bit of a hyperbole but at least early had a good advantage

>saying a 1 century AD army can wipe the floor with a 16th century army is only said by the type of people that believe the Legions can even wipe the floor with medieval knights.
That's the point, Samurai are not medieval knights. Incas were too 16thC army and so fucking what, it doesn't change the fact that they were primitivs. The same with Japanese.
>actually they are going to mention canons and rifles which later period samurai had
It is actually big plus for Romans. They copied everything they could, the same would be with rifles. So soon you would have legions of guys with firearms,

Rifles in the way you are imaging them did not exist until the ports were flung open and the armies began to modernize. Extremely primitive pole cannons were used though sporadically. Just like fire lances in China were, but these were niche weapons that didn't decide battles. As for cannons, the Japanese didn't develop appreciably useful cannons until well after the Byzantine empire fell. Thus it isn't something that can be entered into this argument.

Also, the OP said army of Samurai. I am uncertain of this but I am suspicious of the notion that samurai regularly manned artillery teams. In any case, by the time you could bring cannons and rifles into the conversation with Japan, Byzantine was gone.

You are arbitrarily picking two dates. One army with gunpowder, the other without. No shit this wouldn't work. However if you follow my more respectful determinations of both armies a little up in the thread, the Romans would win because of unit variety and often simply just being in possession of flat out better units.

Also, are you implying that the Germans were a modern (by those standards) fighting force? Because that's laughable. You should have said the Huns, that actually has a considerable amount of weight. The Parthians were also modern but eventually lost to the Romans on several occasions who due to infighting could never keep their holdings. In any case, Caesar knew what went wrong with Crassus' campaign and you'd be an imbecile to think he'd repeat them. But then Brutus and those retards stabbed him.

>the arquebus was a niche weapon

Wat? Japan produced more firearms than any other contemporary nation. They fielded thousands in the battle of Sekigahara and Hideyoshi used them extensively in his unification of Japan. By 1600, firearms were one of the key blocks of the army.

They were hardly a "niche" after 1575.

>Eastern ROMAN Empire

That name ring any bells?

Well the Byzantine army was all but gone in the 14th century.

Stop trying to be a military hipster.

>Roman Empire
>Doesn't even own Rome nor speak latin
Why don't we just make every country in the world a Roman Empire then?

>the military that conquered most of the known world is overrated.

Neck yourself.

>Literally half of the Roman Empire
>Stops becoming Roman Empire because the other half fucks up

Nah. If you split stick A into two halves and throw one half away, the other half doesn't stop being from the same stick.

Japanese armies at that time were a match for anything in the world, they had far more and better guns than most forces at the time. Not to mention mass produced armor and weapons for the rank and file.

>Literally half of the Roman Empire
Have you seen Byzantium in the 15th century?

You could throw a rock from one end to the other, but that doesn't change what it was and what it's called. The Byzantine Empire was the Roman Empire.

No u weeb scum

>wrestling a bull to the ground
Ok

Western half fell early, the remaining part survived until the fall of the Roman Empire Capital of Constantinople in 1453 by the Ottoman Empire. It is only us westerners who call them the EASTERN Roman Empire. They continued to call themselves just the ROMAN EMPIRE until the end.

While samurai had better gear and training, the romans actually fought wars in full scale coordinated fashion.

So I say Romans win given your talking about armies.

If it was just a squad or a few guys then I would say samurai.

I would see the Romans taking an early advantage, but quickly losing it as the samurai adapt, but ultimately the long battle would be won by Roman military logistic support as the samurai slowly lose but not without putting up a fierce fight.

It is like asking which would win an army of tanks or an army of infantry. Sure the tanks have a lot going for them, but in a real fluid battle good foot soldiers will best special units nearly every time.

The samurai fought plenty of large scale battles, both in their early period and in the sengoku.

Late Roman armies would lose
Early Roman armies have a chance

I'm assuming you mean Samurais from the Sengoku Jidai period correct?

I' m gonna bite the bait here because no-one seems to have mentioned the most obvious reason why Rome would win, in almost every imaginable engagement.
This reason can be solely placed in the difference in fighting methods. Yes the ashigaru with polearm/pike type weapons would have fought in a maniple style, the bulk of Samurai, whilst often armed similarly, did not.
It is because of the Romans shielded maniple fighting style, scutum, gladius, hasta and pilum, that they effectively created a meat grinder that robbed any individual opponent of their superior skill at arms. And that would be the only advantage the Samurai had, yet don't forget, the northern barbarians were constantly defeated despite this shared "advantage".
This is without mentioning auxilliary cohorts of cavalry, archers and the ever present ballistae and bolt throwers that would follow around a legion where ever it went as well.
To me it is absolutely no contest purely because of the fact that the Roman fighting style is designed specifically to counter the more individual focus of the Samurai.

Yes, but they did so similar to knights in Europe.

You don't really have an army of knights (or samurai), you have hard hitting knights working with other units. The knights were talked about because they could turn the tide of the battle and very combat capable, but relying only on them is unrealistic for many reasons.

The cost and other things would make it crazy. Unless OP is talking about a whole army of samurai like one would talk about attacking with a whole army of delta forces.

Honestly I am having a hard time picturing hundreds of thousands of delta forces fighting in replacement of an army. I mean cost wise it would never happen, but structurally it would be death to all opposition it such a large unit could be managed correctly.

Well it depends on how you define samurai. Samurai was a social status, Op probably meant a Japanese army.

Ottomans also had guns.

>known world

that meme again
what about Persia? China? India?
One fucking sea does not "most of the known world" make

and Ottomans destroyed Eastern Rome

your point

Germanics had during in the fall of Rome pretty much modernized due to adopting Rome's tactics and weapons (due to composing their armies). You say their "laughable" but them destroying western Rome shows they were just as good if not better than the Romans at the time.

Agreed, when I talk about samurai I usually think appointed samurai, which was a very exclusive deal. People of the samurai class were much more common, but often did not own all that expensive gear.

If it were OP meant the Japanese army, then they would win but with significant causalities. That is manly do to then having a historical advantage in tech and tactics. The roman tactics nearly conquered the world, so it is not surprising to thing that later armies would have counter tactics against such things.
In which case the major factor is just how far in time they are. After all a modern military wouldn't lose to world class British red coats, partly because of tech but also not to be over looked is nearly any history book tells you exactly how they fight.

Dude, which mods you use?

Can an army of Samurai from year 3000 defeat an army of Roman legion from year -2000 BCE?

And the Ottomans shot the fuck out of the Romans.

I think if we are talking an army from Japans late classical period, the mounted tactics used by late-classical/early medieval japanese forces would be troublesome for the Romans who struggled against similar tactics in the east

>an army of feudalistic rice farmers with arbitrary class titles
>vs one of the most professional armies of all time

The English and French were 1000 years ahead of the romans during the 100 years war and yet Rome would curbstomp them easily
Professional armies almost always beat feudalistic armies

Because rice farmers have never repelled a superior force am i rite?

I find that highly doubtful. In fact I am pretty sure a french or english army at the time would easily beat a roman force. Heavy Calvary, cross bows/long bows and infantry would be very hard for a classical legion to deal with.

The Phalanx wasn't outdated, Hannibal and Pyrrhus showed that. Commanders of the era simply couldn't utilize phalanx as well as Phillip, Alexander, or Ptolemy could. It wasn't the tactics of the Phalanx, it was the strategy of its commanders. The idea that the phalanx isn't flexible is only an anecdote to explain Roman military dominance of waining Alexandrian successor states. The Dadiochi more or less curb-stomped everyone except the Romans. The Romans didn't just develop those tactics to fight phalanx, they easily defeated Gauls, Iberians, Dacians, and fought well against the Armenians, against Pontus, and yes, even the Parthians. Samurai and their commanders hever could have matched the Romans in a pitched battle, Japanese cavalry tactics were comparable to Roman ones, any idea you have that Samurai cavalry would be better than Roman cavalry is laughable. None of this takes into account that the Romans fought in an organized manner, with LARGE SHIELDS AND HEAVY ARMOR, something that samurai usually lacked (most samurai armor was sparse, on the shoulders, arms and legs, male was rare for most. Also, Samurai never encountered a shield wall or rather, an organized army with shields, especially not ones the size of scuta. In close combat the romans would have inflicted high casualties and the Japanese close combats arms would have been ineffective. While Japanese commanders were more organized than Gauls or the like, their infantry tactics would have been just as uncoordinated. Not to mention that most samurai weren't the trained-from-birth meme warriors you hear about, most were literally slightly-better-off-than peasants (basically Kulaks) and were LITERALLY rice farmers. Firearms and cannons are a different story and the only advantage the Samurai would have

Are you guys meming? Only wealthy samurai were trained in combat and most of them learned individualistic martial arts.

Seems this pic is long overdue.

You're underestimating classical armies. Romans had heavy cavalry and fought it often, just because Medieval knights had plate armor doesnt mean they'd plow over a cavalrymen in Lorica Segmenta with chain mail underneath.
A French or English army would get smashed. Your also severly overestimating medival infantry and the effectiveness of crossbows and long bows. A decent Roman commander would have definitely known how to screen his army and prevent losses from projectiles and roman infantry would wipe the floor with medieval infantry, roman auxilary cavalry probably would have neutralized and knights. I'm sorry but you know nothing

>they didn't
>they easily defeated Gauls, Iberians, Dacians

which were either phalanx armies or pre-phalanx barbarian armies the phalanx was design against
post Alexander west was pretty stagnant military-wise before the Romans came and took it over

That's the consensus

that and "which timeline?"

>They only strength the Japanese would have, it would be cavalry.
Japanese "cavalry" were primarily mounted infantry,their horses were outclassed by continental breeds. reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5g3e55/how_was_cavalry_used_in_japan_during_the_sengoku/

>Didn't like 40 spanish beat the shit out of like 1000 samurai?
The wiki article on the battle of Cagayan reeks of revisionism.

The Spanish exaggerated the number of enemy combatants in two separate engagements. They claimed a force of 200 assaulted the galley(which is improbable as the largest Japanese ship only had 60 marines and 80 sailors) while the skirmish is out right impossible(1000 Wokou can't fit on 18 sampans meant for a crew of 180 men).

Wokou are hardly representative of Sengoku period armies,being a mulitethnic coalition with a heavy Chinese contingent.

The Spanish were a quaternary force in East Asia that were subject to the whims of mere pirates.