How would the samurai have faired in Europe?

How would the samurai have faired in Europe?

Other urls found in this thread:

greatmingmilitary.blogspot.com/2017/01/random-mythbusting-part-2.html
eap.einaudi.cornell.edu/publication/little-need-divine-intervention-takezaki-suenagas-scrolls-mongol-invasions-japan
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_invasions_of_Japan
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1582_Cagayan_battles
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_in_1600
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Poorly

Bullshit. Samurai armor is better than that

Samurai swords are crafted by true master sword smiths out of the crappiest sand sieved metal on earth (the swords contained things like titanium because they were made from sieved sand because Japan has no metal deposits) and their armour was made of wood, even the most elite samurai would only have a decent chance against even the weakest European infantry. So unless they had good matirials (and they did have a very good armour building technique which fair very well against projectiles, something many European warriors lacked) they would do horribly

Samurai "armour" doesn't become relevant until the 17th century, nothing comparable to the full plate and gambeson of Europe at the time. Plus Samurai weren't as well trained or organised, furthermore the katana is inferior to the longsword in design and metal as the guard is too small and the blade being brittle

That armour is from an elite samurai, and elite samurai were in short supply

>Japan is teleported to the Mediterranean
>Knights all around investigate the disturbance
>Samurai are confused, but attacks the invading landing parties
>Takeda Calvary vs French Knights
Chosokabe bows vs English Longbows
Otomo find their Portuguese friends

>Plus Samurai weren't as well trained
The samurai were the most highly trained fighters in the world at the time.

Not really. Imagine the guy with 20 years of experience programming on Turing machine only. He is out of touch and knows nothing on newer technologies. And for some reason he competes with web developer(he has also 20 years of experience) and both have to write simple api with REST. Who will do better?
His higher experience is meme, as it seems both were working/learning the same amount of time, but for some reason you think the Turing guy is better qualified.
Naturally the Turing guy has no fucking idea what REST is, so he will have to do research first. And he will lose similar "duels" each time.

>at the time
>implying

Samurai armor has been shown to stop bullets from that era.

>Samurai armor is better than that
>posts samurai armor definitely worse than that

About as well as any knight or soldier
Pro-tip
The samurai preferred their longbows to their swords and only started the sword meme when guns became a reliable long range weapon

Yeah and so has european armor of that era. In fact breastplates were routinely tested for being bullet proof.

They would have quickly changed their armor and gotten better horses.

It was not that the samurai were bad, they were more than proficient at repelling foreign attacks and terrorizing their neighbors despite horrible navel technology. But Europe did have more developed armor and much better horses.

Other things your going to hear in this thread comparing katana to long swords an rapiers or claiming that samurai armor was made of wood are silly and irrelevant, and generally made by people who are little to know familiarity with weapons are armor, or the historical uses of them.

There would have been a lot fewer Jews, I'll say that much.

I can't tell if people are just joking or not.

...

>horses
But this is wrong

user that's a cannonball, nothing's gonna stop that shit before reinforced steel is a thing.

Depends on what era of Samurai. Keep in mind that at one point, Japan had a metric shitton of guns, and the three-line formation allowed for a constant stream of bullets that made calvary worthless.

Trampled by cavalry. Just look at their poor performance against numerically inferior Ming forces.

Nothing gonna stop that, period. Even a top grade modern body armour won't prevent you to being turned into marmalade.

They would get btfo in a cavalry charge with their midget horses

Well I meant like a wall or something.

>Ptolemy has midget elephants that get BTFO by Antiochus' BBClephants
>still wins the battle and cucks the BBClephants

>samus totes gonna beats knights in a cavalry charge,guys. Look!

They ain't even gonna win against Muslim cataphracts

What did he mean by this?

newfag

>Samurai armor has been shown to stop obsolete Nippon firearms
fify

Raped by heavy cavlary

Ah yes and wielded swords made out of a million times folded over super steel that could cut machine gun barrels

Samurai were overrated by ignorant people in the past. Now, due to a reaction to this, they are underrated by equally ignorant people.
The answer is, it depends on the era...

They did an amazing job against the Mongols, which were the strongest ones in their era. They would probably fare well enough in Europe in that era.
But in the Onin War they were not really that strong and couldn't compare with the army of Charles the Bold, for example.
But then, by the time of Sekigahara they had as strong of an army as you could find. They had experienced generals who survived dozens of battles like Shimazu Yoshihiro (who hasn't lost a single land battle against the Ming, no matter how outnumbered he was). They had more firearms than any other country.
But then, by the time of the Napoleonic era, they were very, very weak. None of them had ever experienced a single battle. They probably didn't even know someone who has fought in a battle. And their technology was outdated.

>hey had more firearms than any other country.
This again. Are you the same guy again and again telling this bs?

Who had more firearms than they did?

>even the footsoldiers wear plate
I call bullshit

Europeans were superior in about everything, so not that good i'd imagine

>Made from wood
That's mainly a myth only in the real early period was some of the armour made from wood.

Let's see, Hungarian black army almost 200 years earlier? Hussities? Comparing 16thC European army with 16thC Japan one would be ridiculous.
greatmingmilitary.blogspot.com/2017/01/random-mythbusting-part-2.html

>repelling foreign attacks
When?
When the mongols all drowned that one time?

That is not what happened. there were two invasions and in the first one the mongols had alot of initial success until the Japanese began chipping away at them and finally caught them unaware. During the second they had trouble making beachhead.

The Jew fears ......

The T*rks tbqh.

first invasion
>Around nightfall, a typhoon caused the Mongol ship captains to suggest that the land force reembark in order to avoid the risk of being marooned on Japanese soil. By daybreak, only a few ships had not set out to sea. Those that had were destroyed by the storm. Some accounts offer casualty reports that suggest 200 Mongol ships were lost. However, small Japanese boats were much more swift and maneuverable than Mongol ships, and the Japanese were able to board the remaining ships of the crippled Mongol army.
Second
>They actually did drown due to shitty ships and typhoons

Japs had more firearms in the 16th Century than any *singular* *European* state. Given that those were quite small.

Japan didn't have as many firearms as say, the Three Muslim Gunpowder Empires nor even neighboring Ming/Qing China.

Nips can't even into Cannon.

Did the safavids use a lot of gunpowder? I thought they stuck to light cav and archers which is why they were btfo by the Ottomans.

To a degree yes.

If we're talking samurai as we usually imagine them, i.e. no firearms, versus some general Western European Medieval force, then the biggest hurdle for the Nips would probably be the heavy cavalry in full plate on huge warhorses.

that is a vast over simplification of the invasions. Modern academic analysis does not consider the typhoons the decisive factor. Look up: "in little need of divine intervention" by Thomas Conlan.

OP is clearly shitposting but I can't tell if the others are only pretending to fall for the bait.

>One guys interpretation trumps all
>and I will not post any relevant excerpts

no shields duurrrrrrr

>Japs had more firearms in the 16th Century than any *singular* *European* state.
I sincerely doubt Japan had more firearms than Spain

Veeky Forums loves to shit on samurai. I dont know if its people angry over previously believing the media hype or poltards in love with Europe but they tend to get riled up over this.

Hideaki Anno.

>mfw a 4 foot tall, yellow skinned savage wearing
blocks of wood is swinging his bulky and unpractical swords at my direction

eap.einaudi.cornell.edu/publication/little-need-divine-intervention-takezaki-suenagas-scrolls-mongol-invasions-japan

In Little Need of Divine Intervention presents a fundamental revision of the thirteenth-century Mongol Invasions of Japan by revealing that the warriors of medieval Japan were capable of fighting the Mongols to a standstill without the aid of any divine winds or kamikaze. Conlan's interpretation of the invasions is supplemented with translations of the picture scrolls commissioned by Takezaki Suenaga, a warrior who fought against the Mongols. In addition, translations of nearly seventy administrative documents are provided, thereby enabling students of Japanese history reconstruct the invasions using contemporary sources.


"Will undoubtedly become the standard work on this topic." — Journal of Japanese Studies
"Conlan's book is a most welcome and outstanding contribution to our knowledge of medieval Japan, written in a highly readable style, and providing us with well-organized evidence and thoughtful interpretation of an event abounding in relevant domestic and international implications." — Monumenta Nipponica

Considering there are Samurai armed with guns and cannons, how do you think?

>they were more than proficient at repelling foreign attacks
>They did an amazing job against the Mongols
Repelling two skirmish style battles is not really "amazing", and actually only one of them had actual combat, the other one was mostly done by typhoon.

In all their history up until 1945, they'd only encountered "2" actual outside invasions, which were all did by Mongols, and Mongols are even more unfamiliar with naval and amphibious battle than Samurai. It's hardly can define as "proficient at repelling foreign attacks".

This is no deliberately underrate, just stating facts.

Calling the Mongolian invasions 2 scrimish style battles is inaccurate, there were several battles during each invasion.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_invasions_of_Japan

perhaps saying that proves proficiency was a bit of a stretch, but I think it establishes that an invasion of Japan at that time was at the very least to expensive and complicated a task for a foreign army.

>Mongol invasions of Japan
>"skirmish style battles"
Are you being deliberately obstinate here?

Japan had hundreds of thousands of firearms. They did have more firearms than any European country from before.
They invaded Korea with 150,000 soldiers.

But as said, probably less so than the Ottomans/Mughals or Ming.

Asian Empires usually had larger numbers than European ones.
I remember some time ago, someone posted Venice's estimate of the number of soldiers or cavalrymen in each country.
It was something like:
England can muster 20,000
France can muster 30,000
Germany can muster 40,000
Tamerlane can muster 800,000

I'm sure the European pole arms would shit on the Japanese ones even though I think both are sexy.

Did you read the link?
Either way:

>Battle of Nagashino, 1575
>10k out of 38k arquebusiers
>Spanish Tercio, ca. 1530
>1/3 musketeers
European armies probably had a higher share of gunners at any given time, but musket production was not a bottleneck in either place. Army sizes depended on economics and logistics.

>Samurai
>using firearms

>American education
I suppose you got your knowledge about the samurai from the last samurai with Tom Cruz right?

But Samurei preferred the use of traditional weapons. Arquebuses were issued to the Ashigaru.

this thread again.
They would have kited knights until their either died or left the battlefield.

10k out of 38k is roughly 1/4. Which is consistent with what we know about the Korean invasion, where 1/4 of their men were arquebusiers.
So, from about 150,000 troops in that invasion, 37,500 were arquebusiers.

And Japan had a much larger number of troops than Spain. In the conquest of Kyushu, in one battle, Hideoyoshi had 170,000 men to fight against the Shimazu.
In Europe, only the Ottomans could throw those kinds of numbers in their enemies.

>Shimazu Yoshihiro (who hasn't lost a single land battle against the Ming, no matter how outnumbered he was)
A defensive siege really isn't an indicator of martial prowess. Even the Koreans won Haengju and Jinju with vastly inferior troops.

The Japanese had trouble adjusting to continental cavalry out in the open and had to rely on the local terrain or ambushes to sucessfully repel them.

He also participated in other land battles and didn't lose a single one of them (of course, in the sea he lost to Admiral Yi). Sacheon is just the most famous one.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1582_Cagayan_battles

How many men you can amass in one place doesn't really matter though. Smaller polities make for smaller armies on the field, but a given population will still be militarized in roughly equal ratio.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_in_1600
And you admitted yourself that japan had a lower ratio of gunners, so it stands to reason they produced less guns as well.

They're standing in mud and they haven't sunk past their ankles.

>but a given population will still be militarized in roughly equal ratio.

Feudal Japan was known for having a particularly high militarization of society.
Samurai were 7-10% of the population.

>He also participated in other land battles and didn't lose a single one of them
What other battles did Shimazu Yoshiro participate in? Wikipedia only lists Sacheon.

The problem with the Sengoku armies as whole is that they lagged behind in naval capacity,artillery and mobility despite having competent infantry and commanders.

Maybe so but they had the snazziest outfits though

Samurai armor looks incredibly cool, but functionally it's massively inferior to European plate armor and superior weapons. Even most of their weapons wouldn't do shit against a fully armoured knight.

>Samurai vs Knight
>Samurai shoots Knight with is rifle

Wikipedia is wrong, the actual number of firearm equipped soldiers present at Nagashino is around 1000-3000.

The fact is that while Japan adopted firearms wholeheartedly, they didn't have the resources to produce firearms en masse, especially since saltpeter and lead had to be imported, which drastically drove up the cost of firearms. Musket production absolutely was a bottleneck for nations up until the mid 1600s for Europeans.

Consider this, Muskets in the English civil war cost around 10 shillings each, while a pike costs 4 shillings. Even the relatively wealthy England was unable to meet the 1:2 ratio of Pikemen:Musketeers, and often had to settle for 1:1.