Who would win?

When did Japan try to invade China? The off-sea invasion I know of is the Imjin Wars in 1599.

What about slavs? Would they fuck romans up?

Japan invaded Korea in 1592. They sent emissaries asking to be allowed to pass through on their way to China. Korea refused and mostly got kicked around until China sent in reinforcements.

Different theories as to why, but the new ruler of Japan, Hideyoshi Toyotomi, was a commoner, not a noble, and thus was refused the title of Shogun by the emperor. One theory says he wanted to install himself as Emperor of China so his dynasty would be safe.

Asians fucked Romans up several times at the height of Roman power and Japanese were no special by that time.

If you mean Sengoku Japanese, it's not even a contest as they've got guns. Craploads of guns. Plus, all of Roman gear is tailor-made to fight people with specific equipment preference that is completely different to the Japanese.

So no, Romans don't stand a chance.
But it would be pretty retarded to ever even start assuming that given that you're comparing a power from the the fucking Iron Age with a pre-Modern nationality.

Slavs and Tribes up in the north was to uncivilized and spread out to pose as a threat
It wasn't untill they started to move into Italy and come with their Barbaric culture they became a threat

Yea sorry, I got the dates wrong. I wouldn't say they were kicked around though, whilst the Chinese intervention during the late part of the first invasion certainly helped tremendously, Korean forces were already beginning to gain momentum due to endless militia skirmishes and military veterans grouping up under battle tested leaders, not to mention the whole naval situation.

It still doesn't answer the question whether the Japanese wanted to invade in 1467 though. Or is the OP just addressing the start of the period?

I was referring to the beginning of the Sengoku period in which Japan became a unified country.

>all of Roman gear is tailor-made to fight people with specific equipment preference that is completely different to the Japanese.
pretty sure the equipment and tactics of roman legions was meant specifically to counter spears and bows, which were the main constituents of japanese forces before guns were introduced

Depends on how many no-dachi the Japanese have.

They had pilums which specifically designed to screw up shields and their own shields were not the best against missiles, nor intended as such (hence why they had to do all the fancy formations that cost them dearly when fighting Parthians).

They got fucked up by Germans (largely spears, no shields, mountainous terrain with forrests almost exactly like the ones in Japan), they got fucked up by horse archer nomads (another forte of the Japanese) and they lost against Parthians (which primarily used the Roman weakness to archery against them, setting them up for Cataphract butt-fucking that is the one element that Japan could not reproduce, not having cavalry suitable for the role).

The regions that gave Romans the most trouble and eventually defeated them are remarkably close to Japan. Only they were much less developed, had worse equipment, less tactics, morale or cohesiveness,... You could see them as all-around downgraded Sengoku Japanese and they still won against Romans.

Same could be said against the japs, they dont have shields, spam projectiles and you are done with them, the romans at least have shields

Going to need a specific period for Japan here, Heian they would absolutely fuck Rome (like the Parthians did) with horse meme archers

Luck is an important element of success I guess.

The people saying Japan has a chance are memeing right? Japan was a feudal shithole that took centuries to unify. The Romans had specialist units for everyone they came up against. The memeing saying "Persians beat Rome with horse archers therefore Japan would too" ignore that fact that Rome adopted horse archers and heavy cavalry from the Persians. They literally had horse archers and cataphracts for most of their history.

The Romans could out produce Japan easily in everything, more people, more weapons and more armour. Hell even Roman fortifications are superior.

Honestly Japan would fall the same way Gaul, Britain, Spain and Germany fell. Someone would think they can use Rome as an ally and end up their bitch, by the time the Japanese unite to fight the Romans it will have been too late.

Japan isn't as forested as Germania was and its people were much more settled and even urban, so don't try and say "we'll pull off something similar."

It entirely depends on what Roman and Japanese eras are going up against each other, just saying "Rome vs Japan" gives no basis for anything quite honestly, it could be Boshin War Japan vs Rome pre-Marian reforms for all the detail it gives. This is why Deadliest Warrior meme threads are fucking stupid

>The memeing saying "Persians beat Rome with horse archers therefore Japan would too" ignore that fact that Rome adopted horse archers and heavy cavalry from the Persians.

And kept getting fucked by them whenever new ones appeared. The Huns fucked them up tremendously, for a well known example.
Likewise, they got their asses handed to them in the Near East using these very same methods.

Japanese had shields and dropped them. They also had a crapload of archers which composed the majority of the engagement and they still didn't re-adopt shields.
You can see the notion of just using missiles to beat them easily is insane at best. Especially considering their neighbours whom were famous for making ranged weapons with effectiveness that would make Romans turn red.

If we transport 40 000 roman soldiers and 40 000 japanese soldiers to a battlefield, remove gunpowder and downgrade everyones metal down to iron. Leveling the playingfield.

Rome would probably win as it was a professional army. The Japanese would consist mainly of conscripts (farmers and workers) with a core of professional soldiers (ashigaru).

If the japanese had gunpowder there would be no question. Muskets are fucking LOUD, just the sound of a volley would be enough to intimitade and scare off the Romans as they would realise they were dealing with superior projectile weaponry.

>>They got fucked up by Germans
Over simplification of what actually happened, the Romans at their height absolutely trashed the germanic tribes. Stuff like Teutoburg was the exception, not the norm. The germanic kingdoms that ultimately wound up invading and occupying the western empire after it declined in wealth and power were already at least partially romanized in terms of weapons and armor.

>>parthians
A few successes but they ultimately wound up getting their asses kicked so hard that Roman Legions reached the persian gulf.

>>sassanids
Some success some failures, not much to say here because they ultimately got murderized by muslims.

>>huns
A tedious meme, the western half of the Roman empire was ultimately successful at driving them out.

Virgin Roman flutes vs. Chad Japanese war drum.

>Kept getting fucked by them
>Outlived the Huns
>Outlived the Persians

Your Hunnic example is also not as helpful as you imagine considering the Huns also relied heavily on people that didn't use horse archers. Considering the Roman and Persian border remained generally "static" for its entire history, only changing on either side temporarily before returning to normal indicates that there were not always getting fucked.

>The Japanese would consist mainly of conscripts (farmers and workers) with a core of professional soldiers (ashigaru).

Ahigaru are the conscripts, user. Samurai are landlords, the serfs they have to equip, train and bring with themselves to form daimyou's army are the ashigaru.
Obviously, the wealthier the samurai, the more ashigaru he's required to bring (which they manage by getting the samurai under them to recruit their own serfs and stuff).

The main difference being that the eventual payment for service is carried out by the daimyou himself, where each individual gets paid according to the number and statues of heads they present as their trophies.
Thus it was possible for a serf to get lucky (or steal) with a head of an enemy samurai and he himself would end up becoming a samurai in their wake. Whereas the European serf had no real reason to give a fuck about the battle's outcome, hence the need for nationalism, religious zealotry, professional soldiers, et cetera. All as ways of getting the common folk to fight and die under one's banner.

Is it autistic if I listen to Japanese war drums before work?
youtu.be/qupswFhMCxI
youtu.be/C7HL5wYqAbU

Also, Imperial Japan was aesthetic af, despite the autism
youtu.be/g1GK6p5993g

>who would win threads
What is this, /co/?

The Byzantines/Eastern Romans were almost perpetually in a fucking state of territorial and economic decline most of their existence following the fall of Sassanid Persia and the rise of the Arab Caliphates.

>Sassanids
>Some successes some failures
The Persians won the last four out of five major wars with the Byzantines; Antasian War, Iberian War, Lazic War, and the war of 579-592 was largely a stalemate. The Sassanid Persians were more than just "winning some".

>the serfs they have to equip, train and bring with themselves to form daimyou's army are the ashigaru
Wrong, the ashigaru came about in 14th Japanese warfare where they were explicitly not levied peasants but instead part time soldiers paid in currency

I think The Romans never had much success in territory like Japan with so many horse archers.

Outliving isnt the same as beating in these fantasy scenario's

>Outlived the Huns
The Huns attacked the Eastern Romans and Western Romans because the Persians were too strong and twice wiped out their armies in the Caucasus and Mesoptamia. They attacked the Romans out of fear of further losses against the Persians and their strength being too great to incur in another war. And the Huns were only stopped at great cost to the Eastern Romans sitting behind their walls while surrounding urban centers were pillaged and raided on and off for over a decade before they migrated further westwards to rampage in Western and Southern Europe which took a large confederation of Romans and Germanic vassals to barely stop.
>Outlived the Persians
Persians still exist today though? Unlike the Byzantine Empire. Unless you mean solely from Islamic conquest? Then kek, because outside of a few reversal of fortune moments which are more akin to outliers, the Byzantines got constantly hemmed into Anatolia for the majority of time against the Arabs and Turks.

Rome definitely

They weree levied peasants. However, as I mentioned previously, fighting in wars provided a large amount of social fluidity (as given in my example of a lucky one even becoming a samurai). In this case, these guys got paid and had enough to build themselves up a bit, get better gear and stuff for when they once again got into a conflict.
They are still fundamentally levied/conscripted farmers, they can simply build themselves up unlike their European counterparts.

No, they were paid a wage of rice, they weren't levied and they weren't peasants, the entire reason the sword hunt and forced stratification under Hideyoshi happened was to prevent them being anything but peasants

Your both wrong, it depended on the period and place.

>BTFO by Hanniblal
>raze and burn Carthage immediately after

Name a battle Hannibal lost while he was in Italy campaigning against the Romans without mentioning failed sieges.

Rome would win pretty much all open field battles due to their defensive/short range weapon tactics, and Japan wasn't unified during their heights in militancy.

archers were very important to the Japanese armies and standard Roman infantry were pretty much counter to ranged troops.

youtube.com/watch?v=VtLa2mWGMbI

somewhat related

The Romans beat the Sassanids and razed their capital and their cities multiple times

You're completely wrong. The Romans defeated horse archer armies plenty of times, they just had more trouble with them than normal. The Parthians lost more battles against the Romans that they won. The Romans were ambushed by the Germans a couple times, not beaten in outright large-scale warfare. The Romans were hugely successful against the Gauls and Germans, who both fougth in similar fashion. The primary Japanese army would be spear and bow. Japanese cavalry would have been very familiar to the Romans.

wtf does that matter? sure Hannibal won a few battles but the result was his entire country being destroyed.

The Romans weren't invincible, they took some serious ass kickings yet nearly every single time they managed to adapt and overcome. stupid fucking faggots like you seem to think a few battles = an entire war

No, its pretty well established that neither the Byzantines nor the Sassanids could get one on each other and eventually weakened each other enough to be susceptible to invasions from elsewhere, nomads, muslims, etc. Both had their major victories and defeats, but thats neither here nor there because the Byzantines were in the midst of a great decline and didn't use the Roman style of warfare by that point anyway.

sengoku jidai era had centuries of innovations behind them, the legionaries would be stopped by their polearms and pikes then get crushed on the flanks

that was Hannibal's problem. He won most of the battles against the Romans, but individual victories mean jack shit against an enemy that doesn't surrender.

Hannibal thought that by winning decisive victories against the Romans, he could cause a general revolt in the Italic allies and force a surrender, but no revolt came, and the Punics were forced to hunker down for a siege, something they had no chance of completing. Then, once Hasdrubal & Mago were neutralized by the Romans elsewhere, all it took was Scipio to launch an invasion of the punic mainland for Hannibal to be called back & defeated in open battle with tactics the Romans stole from Hannibal himself (there's that Roman adaptability showing itself). Hell, look at the Pyrrhic war, where the Greeks won pretty much every battle, and Rome still somehow came out on top & conquered magna graecia.

Romans didn't have some sort of super soldier. Though their armies were probably better at some things (e.g. siege works & construction) than other armies, the real driving power came from the Roman mentality of victory at all costs along with the "industrial" and manpower capabilities of Italia. All the rest, like snazzy tactics & great strategists like Caesar, just allowed for conquests sooner than they would have occurred otherwise.

Byzantine armor was lamellar like samurais. I think this would be a good fight.

Byzantines lost more often than not against the Sassanids.

>wtf does that matter?
Because you are a retard who can't into context.

Pre-gunpowder Japan are no match to Rome in its prime. Sorry, it's just impossible, they're never the same league in any way, even if Japs win a few battles, but they could never win the whole war a against Rome. There were some examples for your reference.

>CE

Yeah, Japs were not even a fucking country when in "BC", just a bunch of barbaric island tribes.

Its either BC or AD.

I doubt the Japanese would win a war against Rome, But I doubt, that if a 2nd century roman army were teleported to 14 century Japan that they would survive long.

They would win some victories but eventually they would be surrounded or make a mistake and they would be destroyed.

>i-i like anime but i dont like rome because other everybody likes it so my favorite country japan wins.

In reality your anime ass military sucked. they lived in an island and didn't really have to build a military. Even all those men they had, lacked proper organized training and equipment.

gunpowder was invented in china, not japan. japan got firearms in 13th century an roman empire in ended 3rd century
>hmmm... i-i wonder if japan had firearms b-because they had all cool animewarriors and s-stuff...

>Byzantines were in the midst of a great decline
Not really.
>didn't use Roman style of warfare by that point anyways.
Absolutely untrue. Also the Roman army did not operate the same way in the 1st century BC as it did in the 2nd century AD. Or compared to that with the 3rd century after it. Or the 4th century after that.

It was a living organism that was adapting, evolving, and changing with the opponents it faced, the rise of new technologies, and the warfare it experienced. And I can guarantee as far as weapons and equipment goes, later "post peak" Roman/Western Roman and Eastern Roman/Byzantine armies were larger, and more heavily armed and armored then their classical counterparts.

IJA vs RIA

Who was more incompetent

The IJA at least won against the British garrison force in Burma they were up against hue

The Italians actually failed at that

the ija was a competent army managed by autistic retards
the RIA was an incompetent army managed by autistic retards
so i would say IJA win narrowly

Yayoi soldier

20th century legionnaires

Mid 20th century Ashigaru

>downgrade everyones metal down to iron
just give them fucking bronze, damn.

What's funny is this battle takes place 300 years before "The Last Samurai" and its depiction of samurai abhoring firearms. In 1575 10,000 ashigaru arquebusiers decimated samurai cavalry in a battle that lends comparisons to Agincourt.

youtube.com/watch?v=bIs3ibPgosE