Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Samurai vs Roman Soldier
Asia Finest Discussion Forum > Asian Culture > Japanese Chat > Japanese Serious Talk
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
Fil-Am
QUOTE (JB_Xyooj @ Nov 29 2004, 11:01 AM)
LOL.....you do have point on the video game....but
i doubt the samurai would be stupid enough like takeda katsuyori to charge
into gun fire nor a spear wall.....and yet the samurai had there own spear wall
of there own skill.....and i doubt the roman be fast enough to take on japanese
samurai.....not only did the japanese knew how to fight with the sword
but also with there bare hand....that why karate was taught among samurai
so incase they lost there sword in battle....they fought hand to hand combat..

and when your talking bout calvary charge i probally bet the samurai would probally pick them heavy armor roman off....with guns or archery
even a simple ahsigaru could kill a mighty skilled roman warrior
*


LOL ROman Cavalry weren't heavily armored, they had enough armor to protect them but they were mobile enough to shoot an bow and arrow from their horse. . In fact Eastern Romans"The Byzantine Empire" were some of the best horse riders in their time. Roman spears are way longer then Samurai spears. And not even the samurai could break through an roman Testudo.
Tuan Nayland
QUOTE (Fil-Am @ Nov 29 2004, 11:06 AM)
In fact Eastern Romans"The Byzantine Empire" were some of the best horse riders in their time.
*


You know your stuff dude biggthumpup.gif
JB_Xyooj
hahahahaha......who said samurai needed to break through the spear wall with calavry
didn't i said...no samurai was as foolish as takeda katsuyori.....after the battle of nagashino
so i would like to say......if Oda nobunaga faced the roman army......they would had
crushed the roman army.........with the muskeet...and aquabresier.....the roman would
had surely fall to the mighty gun and sword.......but it really depends on the weather though embarassedlaugh.gif
Fil-Am
QUOTE (JB_Xyooj @ Nov 29 2004, 11:42 AM)
hahahahaha......who said samurai needed to break through the spear wall with calavry
didn't i said...no samurai was as foolish as takeda katsuyori.....after the battle of nagashino
so i would like to say......if Oda nobunaga faced the roman army......they would had
crushed the roman army.........with the muskeet...and aquabresier.....the roman would
had surely fall to the mighty gun and sword.......but it really depends on the weather though embarassedlaugh.gif
*


Uhh Im talking about the time of the romans. Not the 1800s, guns were introduced to Japan by the westerners. If you gave the romans guns too then the romans would still have the advantage.
JB_Xyooj
alright since you putted it that way......the samurai can deploy a group all baka Gajin
are famiular with....the unit of battlefield ninja......they were battle where samurai
general depolyed ninja for special operation.......so i probally bet the ninja probally
kill the roman genral....which would boost the samurai moral and decrease the roman morale
giving the samurai an advangtage on the roman
shiro
samurai and guns...?
I think I missed something in history class

I seriously doubt that an army of samurai would defeat an army of Roman soldiers, given that both generals had the same leadership level
the samurai would have to use special tactics to break the Roman ranks
but from what I understand, the samurai would feel that not attacking the Romans head-on would be less honourable, and using traps/distraction would not follow Bushido (i.e: attacking an unarmed/unprepared foe)
Fil-Am
QUOTE (shiro @ Nov 29 2004, 12:30 PM)
samurai and guns...?
I think I missed something in history class

I seriously doubt that an army of samurai would defeat an army of Roman soldiers, given that both generals had the same leadership level
the samurai would have to use special tactics to break the Roman ranks
but from what I understand, the samurai would feel that not attacking the Romans head-on would be less honourable, and using traps/distraction would not follow Bushido (i.e: attacking an unarmed/unprepared foe)
*


Yeah and Samurai would get crushed in an head on fight.
Rad Raz
Romans would see samurais as another "barbarian" soldiers. An army from a nation that is not even recognized by the world. Wait Japan didn't even have a nation back then, bunch of providences would make sense.

Roman Legions were divided in many groups.

Hastati, Principites, First Cohort to Royal Cohort, Urban, and finally Pratorian Cohort which is one of the most elite Roman soldier existed. And these guys would literally eat samurais as a breakfast.

Romans did have heavy calvarlys. Ever heard of the Catapharacts which it was introducd after the Marius Reform, and also used by the Byzantine Empire?
CTM2000
The Samurais of course lol. Well in all seriosness, the Roman army was far more numerous and organized. While I respect my ancestors reverence for their warrior spirits, I somehow doubt that's good enough to defeat the Roman empire.
Titanium
The real question is why the hell would the Romans even want to waste their time trying to conquer Japan?
Rad Raz
QUOTE (Titanium @ Nov 29 2004, 06:03 PM)
The real question is why the hell would the Romans even want to waste their time trying to conquer Japan?
*


This isn't about conquering other nation. It's about which soldier would win, and obviously there are enough reasons why Romans would pwn the j@p samurais.

Rest of em are all opinions... uselss opinions.
User1
QUOTE (lilasiankid @ Nov 27 2004, 11:39 PM)
QUOTE (Rad Raz @ Nov 27 2004, 11:32 PM)
How in the hell are Romans close to Han chinese?
*


The Han Dynasty and Imperial Rome were around the same time........They were Both the 2 powerhouses of the world.......plus they were pretty much next door to eachother...though there was never any conflict....

National Geographic magazine did an article comparing the Han empire with the Roman empire militarily and concluded that they'd be matched evenly.
The Han actually dealt with tougher enemies than the Romans.. The Huns/Xiongnus and other northern nomads that constantly fought China were much tougher than Rome's enemies..

The Han Chinese had a better cavalry while the Romans had a better foot soldier formation (adopted phalanx from Greeks?).
Rad Raz
Romans did not use Greek phalanx form because they didn't use hoplite as their weapon.

Romans were fighting over 50 different tribes from all costs. Mainly from northern German tribes and Gauls.
disnikkadirty
it doesn't matter.. asians jus whoop @$$!
Rad Raz
QUOTE (disnikkadirty @ Nov 29 2004, 07:04 PM)
it doesn't matter.. asians jus whoop @$$!
*


And that is why they've been colonized by bunch of whites. I give a thumbs up.
Azn_Sensation
the romans would take japan ez

but if it were 1v1 samurai would most prbly win beerchug.gif
lilasiankid
QUOTE (Rad Raz @ Nov 29 2004, 07:17 PM)
And that is why they've been colonized by bunch of whites. I give a thumbs up.
*


And that's because Asians were peaceful to the Whites instead of Hostile to begin with....then they found out too late....
doozer3
QUOTE (lilasiankid @ Nov 30 2004, 12:28 PM)
And that's because Asians were peaceful to the Whites instead of Hostile to begin with....then they found out too late....
*


Dude:

You should learn some history before you say something that isn't true. Many foreign powers tried to "open" up Japan, but had little success until the arrival of Commodore Perry in 1853 with the "black ships". While Perry used diplomacy and showcased technology, the Japanese primarily agreed to the Treaty of Kanagawa b/c Perry returned in 1854 with a greater fleet and the Japanese knew it was futile to resist against superior weaponry.

Korea also resisted the efforts to open up by the West. In response to the killing of French missionaries, France, in 1866, sent a fleet of 7 ships which were repelled by Korea. In 1866, an American gunship, the USS General Sherman steamed up the Taedong River in order to "convince" Korea to "open up" and became stranded in the river. The Koreans burned the ship by the use of a fire raft and when the ship's crew (mostly Chinese and Malay) reached shore, they were massacred. In 1871, the U.S. sent an expeditionary force to compel Korea to agree to trade and diplomatic ties. The campaign ended with the capture of the "Citadel" with about 240 dead Korean soldiers (to 3 dead, 10 wounded U.S.) but ultimately, the expedition was a failure b/c the U.S. was unable to force Korea to open up.
Protoculture
What! That gallivanting Romans who pissed while barbarian Huns trampled all over 'em!

Japanese warriors, aka samurai are well trained in the Art Of War, & applied it to such finesse in their often 1000 years of constant warfare, either amongst themselves (mostly) or the Korean Kingdoms (could never subdue them, often ended in stalemate, which could be attributed to Ming Chinese help to Koryo) & drubbing the floor outta Mongol armies comprised from veterans Mongols, Koreans & some Chinese.

The FACT that Japanese warriors utilised muskets & guns as early as 16th century (the Portugese introduced 'em gunpowders) & applied 'em in wars eversince would put the Romans in what we called .... wholesale slaughter. embarassedlaugh.gif2 embarassedlaugh.gif2 embarassedlaugh.gif2

Japanese are famous in utilising ambush tactics, which would means havoc to Roman supplies lines. Not to mention, every Japanese citizens during that time knows how to handle naginata, even the lowly farmers to richest merchants. Even housewives also would join in big frenzied, bloodied battles. As for Romans, their highly prized Praetorians aren't as many as the Samurai warriors, not to mention numbers of skilled warriors alone. Samurai are trained to fight all their lives, one battle after another, while Roman legionnaires waiting impatiently for the day they can go home & become ordinary citizens.

Japanese warriors fought in sheer numbers, where by hundred of thousands slaughtering & butchering in middle of battle is nothing much to their standards. Thats where Romans will be engulfed with not only arrows, bullets, swords, naginata but also with fearless Japanese warriors.

Of course, lastly ... the coolness factor. Roman legionnaire can't compared to Samurai warrior.


The Ol' Gang of the East ....


We do learn something or two after Mongols .....


Your samurai hero ....


Me look too cool, me like Mongol too, me want some severed heads ....


The ultra-coolness of Samurai way to decapitate Romans heads ....


Ahhh, the cool Samurai armors, even with face plates .... eat your arse, Medieval Knights!


Again, the coolness factor ....


We comin' to getcha, Roman boys!!!!


Want me to chop your head, hands, legs, your body to sushi, Roman boy?


Samurai musket (rifle) regimental troops .... eat bullets Roman suckers!

biggthumpup.gif Go Samurai!!!!

thumbsdown.gif Flush the Roman!!!
shiro
you point out that Japanese warriors had guns
and then you post a bunch of pre-gun pictures of samurai

besides, this thread is to compare pre-gun samurai vs. a roman army, is it not?
or else it would be like comparing a cavalry unit vs. tanks
or, the Boxer Rebellion
DAI_VIET




I think I'll favor the mighty Romans.
Protoculture
QUOTE (shiro @ Dec 1 2004, 01:47 AM)
you point out that Japanese warriors had guns
and then you post a bunch of pre-gun pictures of samurai

besides, this thread is to compare pre-gun samurai vs. a roman army, is it not?
or else it would be like comparing a cavalry unit vs. tanks
or, the Boxer Rebellion
*


Boy, it ain't a fair world .... I mean, who in the 1st place pit the ancient Romans vs medieval Samurai? Of course the Samurai would win! BTW, Japanese warriors applied & integrated guns with their more conventional units much more effectively, especially during Nobunaga times.

Besides, Romans ain't THAT powerful after being trampled by the Attila & his Huns, the barbaric great-great-great-great granddaddy of Genghis Khan & his Mongol hordes.

The FACT that Romans will be wiped out by vast Chinese Imperial troops or smoked out by vaunted Korean clans armies & Mongols stampede before even set foot to Nihon doors is a testament to that!

Bye-bye, ancient Romans, as we East Asians gonna wiped the floor with your blood!


Lord Shogun spooked his horsie ....


Your local samurai poster boy .... in color!


Even skeleton looks cool in Samurai armor ....



Posing for camera ... say, BANZAI!!!


The Ol' Gang of the East again, in color!


The cool style to chop the Romans to sushi .....


Even a samurai is at peace with nature ...


Teenage Japan Samurai Warrior .....
tqt
Neither the Roman nor Japanese would be able to break the 256-man formation of Alexander the Great of Macedonia

Protoculture
QUOTE (tqt @ Dec 1 2004, 02:18 AM)
Neither the Roman nor Japanese would be able to break the 256-man formation of Alexander the Great of Macedonia


*



The Shogun shall say ....


"Guns regiments ..... FIRE AT WILL!!!!"

The pole-toting Greeks died in hailstorms of bullets, arrows, later on butchered with long shiny Katana swords!
Protoculture
The Last Warrior

Samurai Culture




Samurai Philosophy
The ideal samurai were expected to lead austere, disciplined lives, dedicated to their lords and the perfection of the martial arts and their character. They were expected to be capable of bringing the same finesse to the tea ceremony, calligraphy, and poetry as they would to the removal of an enemy's head in battle. They gave complete loyalty to their daimyo (feudal landlord) in his private army, and received land, position, status, and money in return.

Precepts of the Samurai (samurai no kokoroe), a modern variation on a historical philosophy:
Know yourself. (Jiko o shiru koto)
Always follow through on commitments. (Jibun no kimeta koto wa saigo made kikko suru koto)
Respect everyone. (Ikanaru hito demo sonke suru koto)
Hold strong convictions that cannot be altered by your circumstances. (Kankyo ni sayu sarenai tsuyoi shinnen o motsu koto)
Don't make an enemy of yourself. (Mizu kara teki o tsukuranai koto)
Live without regrets. (Koto ni oite kokaisezu)
Be certain to make a good first impression. (Hito to no deai o taisetsu ni suru koto)
Don't cling to the past. (Miren o motanai koto)
Never break a promise. (Yakusoku o yaburanai koto)
Don't depend on other people. (Hito ni tayoranai koto)
Don't speak ill of others. (Hito o on$hitsu shinai koto)
Don't be afraid of anything. (Ikanaku koto ni oite mo osorenai koto)
Respect the opinions of others. (Hito no iken o soncho suru koto)
Have compassion and understanding for everyone. (Hito ni tai$hite omoiyari o motsu koto)
Don't be impetuous. (karuhazumi ni koto o okosanai koto)
Even little things must be attended to. (Chiisa na koto demo taisetsu ni suru koto)
Never forget to be appreciative. (Kansha no kimochi o wasurenai koto)
Make a desperate effort. (Issho kenmei monogoto o suru koto)
Have a plan for your life. (Jinsei no mokuhyo o sadameru koto)
Never lose your "Beginner's Spirit". (Shoshin o wasurubekarazaru koto)
Glossary of Terms
bushido - the way of the warrior; completely philosophy about an upright, honorable way of life; a way of life considered long, sttep, full of numerous difficulties, travelled as a means of self-cultivation and leading ultimately to self perfection

fudoshin - immovable mind, calm spirit - major goal of samurai; mental state that enables a man to meet any situation with composure

giri - duty and honor

daimyo - feudal lord, landowner, position of power second only to the shogun

shogun - member of the samurai class, who through war, political intrigue, and/or inheritance, has risen himself to a position of military ruling power over all of Japan, second only to the Emperor (who holds that position by "divine" right). The period of reign of that particular military ruler and his decendants is referred to as a "shogunate".

ronin - samurai who owes loyalty to no superior, who has lost the lord to which he has sworn fielty, typically by the death of that lord; a ronin had more freedom and the right to express his opinions compared to one in service to a daimyo; basically an unemployed samurai without a source of protection or income

Hakama - divide skirt-pants worn by samurai

zanshin - ability of the samurai to sense danger, trained into him from his youth by teachers that would sneak up on him until his senses were acutely developed

Saigo made eizoku suru - persist to the end

Ki - spirit, energy, inner strength

Ki ken tai ichi - spirit, sword, body as one

seppuku - ritualistic suicide - honorable death, preferable to allowing the samurai to be shamed by being taken prisoner and beheaded by his enemies

seishin tanren - hard spiritual training in martial arts

satsujen no ken - the sword that kills

katsujin no ken - the sword that gives life


Meijin, or Master
Philosophy: Learning and knowledge are meant to be forgotten. However well a man may be trained in the art of iaijutsu or kenjutsu, the swordsman can never be the master of his technical knowledge unless all his psychical hindrances are removed and he can keep his mind in a state of emptiness (mu), purged even of technique. The entire body should then be capable of displaying for the first time, and to its full extent, all the art acquired by the training of several years. The body will move automatically, with no conscious effort on the part of the swordsman himself. When this level is realized, with all the training thrown to the winds, with a mind perfectly unaware of its own workings, the art of swordsmanship attains its perfection and one who achieves it is called a meijin (master).

The meijin is a technician whose ability goes far beyond that of simple physical expertise. His essence is a spiritual one. He is a living example of an ordered, disciplined life. He continues to make great demands on himself and never omits daily training. He is recognized by the aura of tranquility that surrounds him. He possesses fudoshin, or "immovable mind," a mental state that enables him to meet any situation with composure.

Death Before Dishonor
Death for the samurai was not something to be feared. As warriors, they devoted themselves to fighting, and when death came it was expected that they face it with courage and strength. Rather than allow himself to be shamed by being taken prisoner and beheaded by his enemies, the tradition arose among the samurai of disembowelling himself with his own sword. Known as seppuku -- a more dignified form of the expression "hara-kiri" or "cutting of the belly", the practice was used to prevent the humiliation of capture by an enemy, to perform the act of kanshi (a form of remonstration to a superior), or to carry out a death sentence imposed by the authorities.

Seppuku could only be performed correctly by a man of great courage, thereby distinguishing the man as a member of the military elite. The stomach, or hara, is thought by the Japanese as the physical and spiritual center of the body, thus the natural place to cut to cause death. To avoid prolonging the man's pain, he was aided by another known as a kaishaku, whose role was to behead the performer as the act was completed, or if it seemed that the performer's courage might falter at a critical moment. The kaishaku had to be a skilled swordsman, for he was expected to not sever the neck completely, but to leave the head attached to the body by an uncut section beneath the chin so the performer's death would be distinguished from an ordinary execution. The doomed man inserting a dagger into his stomach with both hands, then drew it across from left to right, before finally twisting the knife at the other side and drawing it up to the solar plexus by following the lower rib. This done, he withdrew the dagger, laid it down, then bent forward for his head to be cut off. Not a sound is to be heard from the man, as a reflection of honor and courage, or anyone else at the ceremony, out of respect.

In 1968, a seppuku ceremony was witnessed by Lord Redesdale, a British diplomat in Japan. In his memoirs, "Tales of Old Japan," Lord Redesdale gives a detailed account of the incident:

"Slowly, and with great dignity, the condemned man mounted on to the raised floor, prostrated himself before the high alter twice, and seated himself before the felt carpet with his back to the high altar, the kaishaku crouching on his left-hand side. One of the three attendant officers then came forward, bearing a stand...on which lay the dirk. This he handed to the condemned man, who received it reverently, raising it to his head with both hands, and placed it in front of himself. The condemned man allowed his upper garments to slip down to his girdle and remained naked to the waist. Carefully, according to custom, he tucked his sleeves under his knees to prevent himself from falling backwards, for a noble Japanese gentleman should die falling forwards. Deliberately, with a steady hand, he took the dirk that lay before him; he looked at it wistfully, almost affectionately; for a moment he seemed to collect his thoughts for the last time, and then, stabbing himself deeply below the waist on the left-hand side, he drew the dirk slowly across to the right side, and, turning it in the wound, gave a slight cut upwards.

"During this sickeningly painful operation, he never moved a muscle of his face. When he drew out the dirk, he leaned forward and stretched out his neck; an expression of pain for the first time crossed his face, but he uttered no sound. At that moment, the kaishaku, who had been keenly watching his every movement, sprang to his feet, poised his sword for a second in the air; there was a flash, a heavy, ugly thud, a crashing fall; with one blow the head had been severed from the condemned man's body. A silence followed, broken only by the hideous noise of the blood throbbing out of the inert heap before us, which but a moment before had been a brave and chivalrous man."

The End of the Samurai
The beginning of the end came in 1867, when the last shogunate fell and a new government was formed under the emperor. Thus began the Meiji era. The Emperor's "Five Articles Oath" in 1868 began dismantling the samurai as an entire class. The day of the samurai, their swords, and their privileges as nobles came to an end when the emperor took away their right and historical prerogative of wearing swords. Henceforth the right to carry a sword was restricted to policemen and soldiers. This was a calamity for the samurai, not only taking away their source of identity and pride, but cutting off their livelihood as a military class. Widespread povety resulted.
Protoculture
KNIGHTS vs SAMURAI



By Mohammed Abbasi

For six centuries the medieval knight dominated the battlefield and influenced the Western world greatly. The armored, mounted warrior, born in Middle Ages, revolutionized warfare and became the foundation of the new political structure known as feudalism. The Church put the medieval knight to the ultimate test-the First Crusade of 1095. The Church, which Christianized almost all of the knights, gave them a very high status in society, one that was sought after even by kings and princes. In the end, the legendary knights of the Middle Ages were lost in a world in which there was gunpowder, muskets, cannons, national states and so on.

No soldier or warrior has ever been around as long as the knight. They fought on the battlefields in Europe for over six to eight hundred years. Slowly, the knight rose his social status from that of the peasant to nobility. They were supposed to follow a code of honor and rules for a knight known as chivalry, which was actually not very well followed.

In England and in America, the popular image of the knight is mostly English, thanks mostly to the story of king Arthur. Real knights, though, first originated in France and weren’t even known in England for a long time. The king Arthur tale was about the political countryside of post-Roman Britain.

Basically, there were three main stages of the knight: first, the emergence of the armored, mounted soldier in the ninth and tenth centuries; second, the development of knighthood in the eleventh through the thirteenth centuries as an institution, and the age of the makers of the King Arthur legend; and third, the fall of knighthood as a result of the rise of new social forces in the late Middle Ages and early modern times-like colonization in the new world, and the discovery of guns, cannons, and bombs.

The early knights lived in castles like the early fortress that was built in Rudesheim in Germany during the 11 th-century. In the fifth century, the Western half of the Roman Empire was destroyed by the invading Germanic tribes. Powerful local lords and war chiefs offered protection to the peasants in return for service, which gave rise to a feudal society.

In the late eight century, the Holy Roman Empire was created by Charlemagne, king of the Franks. To build and defend his new empire, he needed thousands of well trained and prepared soldiers. At the top of his army were armored cavalry men which were pretty much the first knights of Medieval Europe. The armies led by Charlemagne and his allies were the only ones who were able to stop the invading Vikings who raided northwest Europe in the ninth and tenth centuries. The heavily armored cavalry of Charlemagne’s Empire led his armies to victory against the Carolingian and Ottoman emperors; they were also able to move quickly and easily. The early knights fought with spears, swords, and sometimes a bow and arrows. Their armor was usually an iron helmet, body armor, and a large wooden shield. These equipments were so effective that they hardly changed for 300 years! However, all the things that a knight had were very expensive to make and to acquire. The knights had to live all over Western Europe if they wanted to defend every area from invaders. Only they alone could defend the people of Europe from people like the Vikings, Magyar Hungarians, Saracans and Muslims from the south , and others who almost destroyed the huge and wealthy empire that Charlemagne made.

The development of feudalism helped sustain the knight class. A local lord, noble, or other leader would grant land to a knight in return for his military service and loyalty. Peasants, then, would get protection from the knights and local lords, but they had to work hard to serve them by feeding them with their crops and by paying them a lot of taxes. This kind of feudal system raised the role of the knight from mere soldiers to members of a new and powerful ruling class.

The Normans are known by many historians as the most effective of the ‘new knights’-they were descendants of the Vikings who settled in Normandy in northwest France. The Normans learned a lot about warfare from Charlemagne's armies and won many battles through careful planning and daring attacks. They made states in southern Italy and Sicily, and conquered a lot of Great Britain. Many Normans also served in the Byzantine armies, and when Pope Urban II called for a crusade against the Muslims, Norman knights were at the forefront of the great armies that went to the Holy Land.

The arms and armor used by knights and other Western European fighting men changed a lot during the Middle Ages. However, from the earliest days, armor almost always had more than one layer. The first layer would be a pair of loose breaches (see picture on next page) and a shirt. Over the breeches the knight would wear hose, which were like two separate tight-fitting trouser legs. Over his hose, a 12 th-century knight wore mail leggings, called chausses. Next, to cushion his armor, he would put on a padded coat called a gambeson. On top of this would be a tunic (kind of like a robe), which was very long and used as a mark of wealth and status. The knight’s armor consisted of chain mail-sheets of interlocking iron rings-mostly worn over some sort of quilted padding that absorbed the shock of a blow. As his main piece of armor, the chain mail shirt was called a hauberk, which usually had a chain mail hood called a coif. The hauberk was really weird because over this the knight would wear a short surcoat known as gipons, where it would really hard to wear in the summer because it would get very, very hot. The knight also had a helmet, called a bastinet, to protect his head, and a wooden shield. He was armed with a heavy sword that was used for cutting mainly, and not stabbing. Some were equipped with long lances, like those long sword like weapons that would be seen in tournaments where two knights would charge at each other while on horses. In the 14 th-century, the lower layers of clothing and armor were similar to those worn earlier, but the knight had extra protection on his arms, elbows, legs, knees and feet. The strongest part of the armor was now the plate armor, which was made of metal scales and plate covered in decorative cloth.

The knight’s most important possession was his special war-horse, the “destrier”, which is special because it was born and raised for the sole purpose of aiding a knight in battle. Without this expensive animal, the knight wouldn’t be considered a full member of the elite members that followed the cavalry. In training, the knight practiced using weapons while riding this large animal, and war-horses were looked after carefully and were so valuable that some wealthy kings even dressed them in armor before going to battle.

In battle, a closely packed group of knights on horseback walked into the attack, then lowered their lances to make their final charge. The sight of the dozens of knights riding side by side, with the blades of their lances was very frightening.

When charging, a knight almost stood on his stirrups (foot supports), but was held steady by the raised back of his tall, wooden frame saddle, which gripped his hips. He held his heavy lance, which was usually over twelve feet long, in a couched position (almost sitting down), as it was locked tight under his armpit. This meant that it could only be moved just a little bit to the left or to the right when he aimed at his target, but it gave him a very firm grip at the lance. Basically, the knight, with his horse and lance, became totally unstoppable. It was really hard for another knight to get knocked off his horse, since his feet were almost ‘latched; on to the stirrups; but once he got knocked off, it was almost impossible for him to get back on during a battle.

Knights were the leaders and the backbone of most western European armies. They were supported by the squires, who were young men that fought only in an emergency, and professional cavalry sergeants, including highly paid archers. There were also thousands of highly equipped foot soldiers from towns, or peasants who were forced to leave their homes in the country, who had little or no training.

To win a battle, the knights of one army usually had to defeat the knights of another army. The other soldiers tried to protect their own knights. One of the most important battle tactics was conrois. This was a close formation of knights designed to charge at enemies that were just standing around, and other cavalry, and was supposed to catch the enemy off guard. It was almost impossible to stop a conrois once it was started, and once the knight split up, it was really hard to get them back together again. So, if the tactic was going to be effective, the knights had to knockout their enemy in one huge blow (doesn’t it remind you of the legend of the green giant earlier?).

At first, the knights, and men in general treated women very poorly, or more like ‘possessions’. But when the crusaders returned to Europe, their view of women changed after seeing how the Muslims treated their women. Courtly love, and love songs from troubadours became very popular. This type of love between the knight and his ‘lady’ wasn’t very sexual, but very mature and romantic; the woman would give the knight a handkerchief that the knight would take with him to the battle field and fight with the cloth on his arm of tucked away somewhere safe.

There were many reasons why knighthood declined towards the end of the Middle Ages. Archers began to replace knights as the ‘elite on the battle fields, while new weapons like steel-armed crossbows, gunpowder, cannons, and eventually handguns made the heavily armored knight seem weak. The main cause of the knights’ decline though was that western European was changing and the feudal knight was now outdated.

“On the little island of Oki, the passing months and days brought with them only additional sorrows. The Emperor wondered, ‘Of what great crimes have I been guilty that I should be made to suffer so?’ Even while he thus lamented his karma [fate], he tried to think of how he might atone for his sins…He somehow managed to conceal the tears that fell, lending an indescribable nobility to his face. Although he was no longer young, he was still so graceful and handsome that it seemed almost sacrilegious even to himself that such majesty would be wasted in so dreary a place.”
-The Masukagami [“Mirror of Clarity”], anonymous, 1370.

Although fighting men played an important role in Japanese history from the nation’s beginning, the class of warriors known as samurai did not emerge until the twelfth century A.D. By that time, many small chiefdoms were unified into a central state that was headed by an emperor or empress who was believed to be a godly figure. In his study of early Japan, Jonathan Norton Leonard writes: When landholders found they could no longer depend on royal officials for protection against outlaws or predatory neighbors, they armed their sons and retainers[servants] and put themselves under the leadership of chiefs renowned for fighting ability…To gain additional strength for defense or offense, the warrior-chiefs of each small region banded together and offered their services to more important lords. In return for this support the lords agreed to protect the minor chiefs and their followers and to share with them any booty that they might win. The lords in turn pledged allegiance to still loftier noble men who were members of some ancient and mighty family, or at least claimed to be.

This was very similar to the feudal system in medieval Europe where the lords protected the vassals in return for their services. In medieval Japan, the relationship between warriors and clan chiefs was very intense. An outcome of this feudal arrangement was a strict code of warrior behavior emerged known as Bushido (way of the warrior), which called upon warrior to sacrifice his life for his master. Such an act was thought of as the highest from of honor and respect. It was during the twelfth century that these warriors became known as samurai, meaning “those who serve.” Although the samurai were mainly soldiers, many excelled in the arts and philosophy. In these pursuits, the samurai normally showed the same type of discipline that characterized their martial skills.

Throughout the centuries dominated by many different shoguns (military leaders) and daimyos (ruling families), the samurai evolved from servants to military rulers (similar to hoe the medieval knight rose in status). However, the samurai weren’t one single group of fighter-there were many different ranks and jobs, where a complex system of subclasses existed. At the top were wealthy chieftains, while at the other end of the scale were poor samurai barely made a living. In between the two levels, here were many different social levels with different lifestyles, privileges and responsibilities.

Most of the stories about samurai that go out to the public as movies, books or plays and art depict these legendary warriors in history as ferocious men with extraordinary swordsmanship, battling, mastering of the martial arts, and the strict code of discipline by which they lived and followed. Although these views show accurate accounts of samurai I a particular time of their ‘evolution’, there are many other phases of the samurai- seven centuries total! Not many people know, for example, that the first samurai were mounted archers, more skilled with bows and arrows than with swords!

What I found even more surprising was that many samurai warriors became scholars, poets, artists and philosophers who like to make fine handwriting in ink and brush (calligraphy), flower arranging, and the tea ceremony.

Horses and bows were very important in Japan (as in medieval Europe), and were used in warfare from very early times, as shown in statues and artifacts found in tombs of early chieftains. Samurai eventually became very skilled in using the horse. Because their main weapon at this time was the bow and arrow, early samurai exploits were spoken of in Japanese war tales as the “Way of the Horse and Bow.” The quickness and force with an archer could shoot an arrow was amazing! A bunch of arrows made of mainly wood with poison tipped points were worn on a warrior’s right side so he could quickly take out an arrow and fire it as he galloped along on his horse.

Although they weren’t as important as the bow, swords of various sizes and types were also part of a samurai’s armory in the early days. They were mostly for fighting close up with an enemy. Many different kinds of spears were used also. The naginata, one of them, was a curved blade fixed to the end of a pole several feet long. This was known as a woman’s spear because samurai girls were taught to use it from an early age. That was one main difference between the medieval knights and the samurai of Japan-women fought among the samurai as well as men, even though most of them weren’t as respected as the males. A device called the kumade that looks like a long-handled garden rake was used to grab the clothing or helmet of enemy horsemen and to take them off their horse.

Common samurai archers had armor made of lamellae pieces laced together with colorful cords. The lightweight armor allowed for greater freedom of movement and was light, so it was easier on the horse, which could even move faster. The knights of Europe though, wore a lot of armor, and eventually they wore an entire ‘metal’ suit, which gave them a lot of trouble in movement, and was much heavier than what the samurai wore-plus, it must have literally killed some of them during the summer due to so much heat; after all, the medieval knight wore a lot of clothing, as you saw earlier.

I don’t want to focus too much on the earliest samurai, but examine the later samurai, where the sword was their main weapon, rather than the bow and arrow.

As political events changed throughout the centuries, so did weapons and armor. One of these changes was the shift from bow and arrows to spears and swords as the main weapons of the samurai. Changes in armor followed as well. Some mounted archers wearing heavy armor were very effective in wide-open places, but as time went by, the samurai had to fight more on rough, wooded and mountainous terrain, where it was hard to stay on a horse. The bow and arrow was slowly abandoned, along with heavy armor. Light, flexible armor that gave more freedom of movement when fighting with swords was developed. Later, in peaceful times, armor further evolved into very ornate dress uniforms now recognized as works of art.

As the sword and spear became more popular, disputes came up among warriors about which one was more effective in combat. Unlike swords, which were used mainly to slash or pierce the enemy (if the warrior could get close enough), heavy spears were better for knocking down armored warriors from their horses. Overtime, samurai swords became prized possessions of a samurai warrior, and were considered to be the soul of a samurai’s being. During the peaceful Tokugawa era, only samurai were allowed to wear two swords- one with a long, curved blade called a katana, and another shorter one called a wakizashi. Samurai were very, very sharp. A katana could literally cut a person in half when used by a warrior trained in the art of swordsmanship. Fine swords were not only effective weapons, but works of art as well. With beautifully decorated handles and coverings. Before being used in battle, new swords were often tested on the bodies of criminals. Sometimes new swords were used to carry out the execution itself.

As changes in weaponry changed, so did combat tactics by the samurai. I’m going to use an example of two enemies to examine the tactics used.

The Taira and Minamoto clans were bitter rivals for many years. The Minamoto were strongest in the frontier regions. A battle that occurred between the two clans in 1183 is a good example of how formal battle tactics declined.

Kiso Yoshinaka, a Minamoto warlord, made many raids on Tiara provinces from his mountain territory. In retaliation, the Taira sent an expedition against him in 1183. When the two armies met high up in the mountains, Yoshinaka promptly got the Taira into a traditional samurai battle. The Taira got excited because they were skilled in this kind of traditional fighting. Yoshinaka fooled them though-he knew they would come to him with enthusiasm, thinking that they had the advantage. But the Minamoto would fight very informally, and untraditionally, and planned to cut off the Taira’s retreat.

More changes in traditional combat tactics occurred among the samurai as a result of Mongol invasions of the thirteenth century. During two invasions from China’s Kublai Khan, the samurai clans worked together to drive away the Mongols. However, the Japanese samurai were at a disadvantage because they were used to fighting one on one combat whereas the Mongols fought as organized units. The samurai were able to hold off the Mongols thanks to the forces of Mother Nature.

So as time went by, the size of Japanese armies increased, and a new style of warfare called ashigaru (“light feet”) came about, where disciplined troop movements and imaginative strategies were used.

Life among the samurai changed drastically, but the strict discipline and training that turned them into fighting men continued in peacetime as well.

“If the king wants to make me canstable, He must pay his soldiers to maintain them… For soldiers want their pay. If they aren’t well paid, they won’t serve, And if they go unpaid, they’ll pillage.”
-Du Guesclin, quoted by Cuvelier

“No other samurai with such a low stipend spent as much money as I did. And how I blustered and swaggered about, with a trial of followers at my beck and call!… I have no learning to speak of, having taught myself to write only in my twenties-and barely enough to cover my own needs at that. My friends were all bad and none good…My past conduct truly fills me with horror. Let my children, their children, and their children’s children read this record carefully and savor its meaning. So be it."
-Katsu Kokichi, Early Winter, Tempo 14, The Year of the Tiger (1843-translated by Teruko Craig).

WORKS CITED

Gies, francis. "The Knight in History". New York:
harper & Row Publishers, 1984.

Hall, Elanor J. "Life Among the Samurai". Sandiego:
Lucent Books, 1999.

Nardo, Don. "Traditional japan". Sandiego: Lucent
Books, 1995.

Nicolle, David. "Medieval knights". New York: Penguin
Group, 1997.

Pilbean, Mavis. "Japan Under the Shoguns". Austin;
Raintree Steck-Vaugn, 1999.
fjinvasion
fu-k that $hit, Gurkhas are the best soldiers in the world.
lnf
Samurai of course. Samuraļ suceeded to defeat a mongol invasion. Mongol army crushed every army of the middle age even european knights. Moreover roman metalurgy produced very bad weaponry.Barbaric swords were much stronger than Roman swords. The Roman formation was too slow to fight against fast cavalry.An attack on the flank could easily rout a roman army .
lilasiankid
QUOTE (doozer3 @ Nov 30 2004, 06:50 PM)
QUOTE (lilasiankid @ Nov 30 2004, 12:28 PM)

And that's because Asians were peaceful to the Whites instead of Hostile to begin with....then they found out too late....
*


Dude:

You should learn some history before you say something that isn't true. Many foreign powers tried to "open" up Japan, but had little success until the arrival of Commodore Perry in 1853 with the "black ships". While Perry used diplomacy and showcased technology, the Japanese primarily agreed to the Treaty of Kanagawa b/c Perry returned in 1854 with a greater fleet and the Japanese knew it was futile to resist against superior weaponry.

Korea also resisted the efforts to open up by the West. In response to the killing of French missionaries, France, in 1866, sent a fleet of 7 ships which were repelled by Korea. In 1866, an American gunship, the USS General Sherman steamed up the Taedong River in order to "convince" Korea to "open up" and became stranded in the river. The Koreans burned the ship by the use of a fire raft and when the ship's crew (mostly Chinese and Malay) reached shore, they were massacred. In 1871, the U.S. sent an expeditionary force to compel Korea to agree to trade and diplomatic ties. The campaign ended with the capture of the "Citadel" with about 240 dead Korean soldiers (to 3 dead, 10 wounded U.S.) but ultimately, the expedition was a failure b/c the U.S. was unable to force Korea to open up.
*



Of course but they never had any HUGE conflicts....or wars....Western powers never had to fight their way inwards and conquer....the Asians let them come in...and they created spheres of influence....
UrbanPoet
How about one of thsoe Dude's from Lord Of The ring's?

Dwarf Vs. Samurai. Who would win? Dwarfs are pretty fast and strong for their stocky size.
PervertBurger
and they can roll lol
Fil-Am
QUOTE (UrbanPoet @ Dec 1 2004, 12:13 PM)
How about one of thsoe Dude's from Lord Of The ring's?

Dwarf Vs. Samurai. Who would win? Dwarfs are pretty fast and strong for their stocky size.
*


How about Sauron's army against the Samurai. icon_twisted.gif

Oh wait here is an better one the Undead army from Warhammer against the Samurai. The undead army hands down, the Samurai would be scared sh!tless. icon_twisted.gif
lilasiankid
Nawww....I've always thought the Uruk-Hai and Samurai have cool armor...
Fil-Am
Rohan and Gondor against japan who would win.
lilasiankid
Look Samurai versus Roman pictures!!! (Sorry I have no Host......You might have to Copy the Link and paste...IF ANYONE CAN HOST THESE FEEL FREE TO DO IT)



Roman General tries to get Samurai from Behind.



Fearless Samurai CHARGE!



Teaching Romans about the Japanese Sword
Rad Raz
Japanese have never fought with mighty empire army. Therefore, there are no chance in hell that samurais would overwhelm the Roman Legionaries.
Fil-Am
QUOTE (Rad Raz @ Dec 1 2004, 02:32 PM)
Japanese have never fought with mighty empire army. Therefore, there are no chance in hell that samurais would overwhelm the Roman Legionaries.
*


Not only legionares, the roman army was comprised of soldiers from territories they took over.



QUOTE
1. The army of the empire - the principate.
The power of the Roman emperors rested on their control of massive armed forces, paid for out of the emperor's privy purse and bound to him by an oath of personal allegiance. The vast majority of soldiers were stationed in so called imperial provinces, commanded by direct appointees of the emperor. The Roman imperial army was thus in effect very much a private army.

The imperial army was a standing professional army. It contained both conscripts and volunteers serving a minimum term of sixteen years, though most had to serve for 25 years or more before they were up for retirement. To preserve the loyalty of the soldiers on which their position of power rested, the emperors looked well after their interests. Pay was regular and comparatively generous and on occasion supplemented by donativa, special bonuses of up to five years pay. On completion of their term of service soldiers received a large retirement grant of thirteen to seventeen years' worth of pay. In addition to these monetary rewards serving soldiers and retired veterans were also granted numerous legal privileges.

The army of the empire was like its republican predecessors made up of a variety of different units. The most important divisions were however made between the legions, the auxiliaries, the fleet and the imperial guards. It are these main branches of the armed services that will be briefly discussed below.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. The legions

The organisation

The officers

The non commissioned officers
The core of the Roman army was formed by the units called legions from the latin legio, meaning a levy. During the first three centuries of the empire the army contained no more than 25 to 34 legions. Each of these units consisted of about 5000-6000 men recruited among the citizen body. Although the soldiers of the legion were Roman citizens, this did not imply that they originated from the city of Rome or even Italy. With the spread of the franchise among the population of the conquered territories provincials quickly became the most important source of recruits. Italian levies however remained the most usual source for newly raised legions, although several units were formed using marines or legionaries detached from existing formations.

The legio was a miniature army that contained within its ranks troops trained and equipped to perform all kinds of different duties both on and off the battlefield. Although the vast majority of soldiers served as heavy infantry, other legionaries fought as cavalry, archers or light infantry. Other specialised troops operated artillery consisting of torsion guns. The troops were however not solely prepared for combat. Legionaries regularly served as combat engineers constructing fortifications, roads and bridges. As the legion counted among its complement a vast number of men with special skills it was in many ways selfsupporting. A large part of its military equipment could be produced by artisans in the ranks. Soldiers trained as surveyors, engineers and architects ensured that the legion needed little outside help for its building requirements. Administrative duties were performed by other legionaries both within their unit as well as in the provincial bureaucracy.

Each legion carried a number and a name, e.g. legio X Gemina (the tenth 'twin' or 'double' legion), to which honorary titles like pia fidelis (dutiful and loyal) could be added. The numbering and naming of units followed no rationalised pattern. As many of the formations originated in the various armies of the civil wars following the death of Iulius Caesar, several legions carried identical numerals or nicknames. Even new legions that were levied were named and numbered according to diverse systems. The sense of individuality provided by these numbers and titles was reinforced by the use of different unit symbols and signs like bulls, boars or capricorns.


The organisation
The strength and organisation of the legions varied in time and was probably not completely standardised throughout the army. Generally speaking however the legio was organised in ten cohortes or cohorts. These cohorts consisted each of three manipuli, literally 'handfuls', which were in their turn subdivided in two centuriae or 'hundreds'. These centuriae were composed of a number of contubernia or 'tentparties'. Although the name centuria would seem to indicate a unit of a hundred soldiers, this unit could comprise anything from 30 to over 200 individuals. The usual establishment strength however is thought to have been 80 men. From the second half of the first century AD in at least some of the legions the first cohort was reorganised in five double strength centuriae while the remainder continued to be organised in the old manner.

In addition to the regular organisation of cohortes, manipuli and centuriae of the legionary heavy infantry there were other subunits for the equites legionis, the legionary cavalry, and the antesignani or lancearii, the elite legionary light infantry. The exact details of their organisation are as yet not very clear. For a variety of duties provisional units known as vexillationes or numeri were formed. The strength and organisation of these provisional units varied greatly and was only in part based on the more regular subdivisions of the legion.


The officers
Command of the legion was usually given to a legatus legionis picked by the emperor from the senatorial class who generally had some previous military experience through service as a tribunus. In Egypt and from the the start of the third century also in other provinces the command was not entrusted to a senatorial legatus, but to a praefectus legionis, an acting commander drawn from the equestrian order. The legionary commander was assisted by six military tribunes. With the exception of the units stationed in Egypt one of these tribuni was usually a young senator at the start of his public career. Known as a tribunus laticlavius from the broad purple stripes on his tunic this senior tribune was second-in-command. His collegues from the equestrian order were known as tribuni angusticlavii and generally had done earlier service as a commander of an auxiliary infantry unit. A former senior centurion usually performed the duties of praefectus castrorum, camp commandant, and was the third in the chain of command.

The most important officers in the legions were the centuriones. These men were partly directly recruited from the Roman knights or the city councilmembers, but the greater part of the centurions had previously served as soldiers and NCO's in the legions or the praetorian cohorts. Depending on the organisation of the legion either sixty or fifty nine centuriones ordinarii commanded the centuriae, while a varying number of centuriones supernumerarii were employed for special duties. These officers were known by titles derived from the place of their units in the old battle order. The hastatus prior, princeps prior and pilus prior were the higher ranking officers commanding the manipuli. The hastatus posterior, princeps posterior and pilus posterior acted as their deputies. The cohorts were under the command of the pilus prior. Distinguished from their fellow officers were the primi ordines, the senior centurions of the first cohort of the legion. These men had achieved their posts by prior service in other postings and were chief advisors of the legionary commanders. The post of primus pilus, the highest ranking centurion in the legion, carried great prestige and assured entry into the equestrian order.

An uncertain number of supernumerary centurions performed a variety of tasks both within the legion itself and in other units. Centuriones exercitatores for example were used as training officers for the legionary cavalry and the horse guards of provincial governors and the emperor. A centurio stratorum was employed to oversee the remount system of the provincial armies and on occasion to command the singulares, the auxiliary soldiers serving as a governor's guard. The centuriones lanceariorum led the elite legionary infantry known as antesignani or lancearii. Other supernumerary officers performed duties in the medical service of the legions.


The non commissioned officers
To assist the officers the legion counted a number of NCO's among its strength. These men were known as principales and depending on their status recieved as duplicarii double pay or as sesquiplicarii pay and a half. Each centurio ordinarius had an optio as his deputy. Whereas the centurion led his men from the front, the optio was stationed at the rear of the unit to keep the legionaries from shirking away in combat. The signifer or standard bearer carried the signum of the unit. This standard served both as a rallying point for the soldiers and to communicate simple visual commands to the troops in battle. The task of carrying the signum in battle was dangerous as the soldier had to stand in the first rank and could carry only a small buckler. It may not be strictly coincidental that available epigraphical evidence contains a relatively large number of discentes signiferorum, trainee standardbearers. The signifer also assumed responsibility for the financial administration of the unit and functioned as the legionaries' banker. The tesserarius was a third NCO attached to a centuria and in charge of the distribution and collection of the watch words. Both optio and signifer received double pay, but the tesserarius attached to a centuria was on pay and a half. Other principales like the cornicularius were attached to the administrative offices of the legion.

A considerable number of legionary soldiers were classed as immunes. These men were exempted from the more tedious chores because of the special tasks they had to perform, but received no extra pay. As many a soldier without immunity was forced to bribe his centurion to escape the less desirable duties, the immunes would in practice have had some financial gain from their position. Among the immunes were musicians, military police, cavalry troopers, drill and weapons instructors, artisans, clerks and medical orderlies. It was usual for both immunes and principales to have served several years as a munifex, a private liable for all kinds of duty and fatigues, before they received promotion. Most, if not all, positions were reached after a period of specialised training as a discens.


Glossary of Roman army terminology


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. The auxilia

The service conditions
The imperial Roman army continued the republican tradition of supplementing the citizen legions with units recruited from peregrini, non-citizens from conquered or allied communities. In the imperial army the total numerical strength of the various auxiliary formations was roughly comparable to that of the legionary troops. These forces were known as socii or auxilia and were composed of both regular and irregular formations. Many modern works distinguish regular auxilia consisting of cohortes and alae from irregular numeri. This present day division disregards the fact that irregular units could be designated as a cohors and that numerus was a very generic term which was also in general use for regular army units. As in the legiones draftees and volunteers served side by side in the auxiliary forces. With the spread of Roman citizenship among the population of the conquered territories the auxilia were increasingly recruiting citizens into the ranks, blurring the original division between peregrine auxiliaries and citizen legionaries.

The imperial auxilia were composed of a variety of units. Infantry units were generally organised in cohorts that in the case of cohortes equitatae could include a small mounted force. Cavalry was usually formed into alae or 'wings'. Both cohortes and alae could comprise either quingenaria units of approximately 500 man or milliaria formations of 800-1000 soldiers. Infantry cohorts with a mounted contingent had an additional 120 to 250 cavalry troopers. Infantry cohorts were composed of three to five manipuli of each two centuriae. Cavalry alae counted 16 to 24 turmae of 30-40 mounted soldiers. Auxiliary formations were usually commanded by a praefectus cohortis or praefectus alae, though a tribunus cohortis or legionary centurio was occasionally employed. Some of these commanders were drawn from the tribal aristocracy, though most were recruited from the equestrian order. Command of a cavalry alae was only entrusted to men who had previously served as a praefectus cohortis and legionary tribunus. The infantry subunits had similar officers and NCO's as their legionary counterparts. Cavalry turmae were placed under a decurio instead of a centurion. Legionaries were regularly transferred to act as officers and NCO's in the units of the auxilia.

Units in the auxiliary forces carried like the legions a number and a title. The numbering of units followed different patterns and partly reflected the order in which troops had been levied. The names of units varied greatly, many like cohors I Batavorum being derived from the tribe that provided the original levies, others reflecting the armament, e.g. the ala I contariorum, or honouring a former commander, for example ala Siliana. Redeployment of units and the Roman practice of local recruitment of replacements meant that the ethnic titles borne by formations did not reflect the actual origins of its soldiers.

The infantry of the auxilia consisted mainly of soldiers trained and equipped to fight in a way comparable to that of the legionary heavy infantry. In addition to these existed specialised formations of light infantry adept at fighting in a looser order. Units of archers formed a large proportion of the available auxiliary forces. The alae were for the larger part made up of medium cavalry suited for both skirmishing and shock tactics. Formations of mounted archers were also much employed. A minority of the cavalry units were composed of heavy cavalry troopers armed with the contus, a two handed cavalry spear. These soldiers and some of their mounts as well were heavily armoured. In at least part of the medium cavalry alae a number of troopers used to fight as horse archers or heavy cavalry giving the unit a wider range of combat capabilities.

From the auxiliary units of a provincial army a number of soldiers were selected for service in the singulares of the governor's guard. Infantrymen from the cohorts were grouped in the pedites singulares while horsemen from both cohortes equitatae and alae were brigaded in the equites singulares. Both units were trained and commanded by legionary centuriones. The strength of these guard formations was probably related to the numbers of troops deployed in a province. The fact however that regular army formations like the ala singularium were formed from such elite units seems to indicate a strength of approximately 500 for both infantry and cavalry singulares. As promotions in the Roman army were as much depending on personal relations as on merit, men serving in the governor's guard could look forward to better army careers.


The service conditions
There is much debate on the actual service conditions enjoyed by soldiers serving in the auxilia. Recently published evidence seems to indicate that basic pay under the principate was either 1/6th part less or even equal to that of the legionaries. Auxiliaries were also included in the occasional distribution of donativa. These similar service conditions help explain why legionary soldiers were transferring freely to posts in auxiliary units. An important service condition for non-citizens enlisted in the auxilia was the grant of Roman citizenship. Generally this was awarded after 25 years of service, though on occasion grants were made during service as a reward for bravery in battle. An additional retirement grant of money for the auxilia is very likely, though the evidence available is ambiguous. The often cited difference in dimensions of the living space between the larger bases of legions and the smaller frontier forts may not have served to accentuate status differences between the legions and auxiliaries. Not only were legionary soldiers regularly stationed in the smaller forts, but the larger forts were also in part garrisoned by units of the auxilia.


Glossary of Roman army terminology


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. The imperial guard

The praetorian guard

The imperial horse guard
The Roman emperor had several guard units at his disposal. The most important of these were the cohortes praetoriae or praetorian guard. During the reign of the Julio-Claudian dynasty the Germani custodes corporis or German bodyguard provided additional security. From the accession of Traianus the equites singulares Augusti recruited among the auxiliary cavalry formed the emperor's horse guard. The majority of these men served as guards, i.e. picked troops, rather than bodyguards directly watching over the person of the emperor. These elite forces at the emperor's immediate disposal formed the nucleus of the field armies assembled for imperial military expeditions. Smaller numbers of soldiers were selected among the guard units for personal protection duties.


The praetorian guard
Under the republic Roman generals had usually formed a guard unit named cohors praetoria after the praetorium or HQ. Under the empire such units became a privilege reserved for the emperor under whose auspicia all military operations were conducted. Augustus originally formed nine numbered cohortes praetoriae consisting of both infantry and cavalry billeted at Rome and some other Italian cities. This number was later raised to ten units and the cohorts were concentrated in a large base adjacent to Rome. Command of the praetorian guard was entrusted to one or two equestrian praefecti praetorio. Three additional cohortes urbanae with a similar structure were also present at Rome, but not under the direct control of the praetorian prefects.

A praetorian cohort consisted of approximately 500 infantrymen organised in manipuli and centuriae and under the overall command of a tribunus. This strength was doubled in the course of the first century AD. The majority of praetorians fought as heavy infantry with smaller numbers acting as light infantry lancearii and archers. Added to these foot soldiers each cohort contained a number of cavalrymen. The combined equites praetoriani numbered at least 400 men and may even have been a thousand strong. Other troopers were known as equites speculatores and served as bodyguards to the emperor. The praetorian cohort that guarded the imperial palace and accompanied the emperor in the city of Rome was known as the cohors togata. As their duties were performed within the pomerium, the sacred boundary of the city, these soldiers could not wear full armour and equipment and therefore dressed in civilian togae, though keeping their swords at hand.

Service conditions in the praetorian cohorts were better than in the legions. Pay was substantially higher and donativa were more frequent. The term of service of sixteen years compared favourably to the 20 to 25 years in the legions. Promotion opportunities were also excellent. A large part of the legionary posts as centurio was filled by former praetorian guardsmen. The cohortes praetoriae recruited originally in Italy and the older coloniae in the provinces, though at times legionaries were transferred to the guard. From the reign of Septimius Severus the transfer of picked legionaries became the usual method of filling the ranks of the praetorian guard.

The praetorian guard originally served as the backbone of field armies assembled for campaigns that involved the emperor, one of his relatives or a praefectus praetorio. Contrary to popular opinion this meant that the Rome based soldiers had a fair chance of being involved in combat either against the barbarians from across the borders or rebellious Roman army units. Despite the increase in the establishment strength of the praetorian cohorts the guards were increasingly complemented by other formations. In the course of the third century AD the cohortes praetoriae in the comitatus, the imperial field army, were regularly supplemented by mobile troops from the legio II Parthica based at Albanum in Italy. Vexillationes of elite legionaries and auxiliaries from the frontier armies joining these core formations in the imperial field army were slowly developing into separate units that were permanently attached to the imperial retinue.


The imperial horse guard
The citizen guardsmen of the praetorian cohorts had their counterpart in the originally non-citizen horse guards. These consisted in the Julio-Claudian era of the Germani custodes corporis disbanded after Nero and the later equites singulares Augusti. Both these units were also known as Batavi after the tribal origin of many imperial horse guards. Members were usually recruited from the alae and cohortes equitatae, though at times men were directly recruited. The centuriones exercitatores or cavalry training officers for the imperial horse guard were however not drawn from the auxilia, but were selected from the legionary cavalry. The strength of the horse guard was approximately a thousand troopers, a number doubled by Septimius Severus. The organisation of the horse guard resembled that of the cavalry in the auxilia with turmae commanded by decuriones. An equestrian tribunus functioned as overall commander of the imperial horse guards
Protoculture
QUOTE
fu-k that $hit, Gurkhas are the best soldiers in the world.


- Thats a loot of hogwash to me .... the Nepalese Army (majority of Gurkhas) being butchered on daily basis by rag-tag Commie rebels nowadays. Where's the best tag came along, eh? sure.gif

QUOTE
Japanese have never fought with mighty empire army. Therefore, there are no chance in hell that samurais would overwhelm the Roman Legionaries.


- Japan by itself is an empire within itself, alas a squabling one. Their history are full of civil wars over large vast of fertile lands, successions as Lord Shogunate, outward expeditions campaigns against Korean clannish warriors from time to time.

- Samurai are dedicated warrior class whose liked & LOVED war as way of life. That ain't so with conscripted Roman legionnaires whose units more often being filled by outlaw mercenaries (the REASON why Romans got trampled by barbaric Huns). By far, legionnaires ain't that many compared to samurai, who tend to be in waaaaay more in large numbers compared to the Romans.

Romans Legionnaires = Quality troops + Lesser quantity

Versus

Japanese Samurai = Quality troops + More quantity


- There're many chances in hell that Samurai gonna slaughtered those impudent Roman gaijins!!!
Protoculture
QUOTE
fu-k that $hit, Gurkhas are the best soldiers in the world.


- Thats a loot of hogwash to me .... the Nepalese Army (majority of Gurkhas) being butchered on daily basis by rag-tag Commie rebels nowadays. Where's the best tag came along, eh? sure.gif

QUOTE
Japanese have never fought with mighty empire army. Therefore, there are no chance in hell that samurais would overwhelm the Roman Legionaries.


- Japan by itself is an empire within itself, alas a squabling one. Their history are full of civil wars over large vast of fertile lands, successions as Lord Shogunate, outward expeditions campaigns against Korean clannish warriors from time to time.

- Samurai are dedicated warrior class whose liked & LOVED war as way of life. That ain't so with conscripted Roman legionnaires whose units more often being filled by outlaw mercenaries (the REASON why Romans got trampled by barbaric Huns). By far, legionnaires ain't that many compared to samurai, who tend to be in waaaaay more in large numbers compared to the Romans.

Romans Legionnaires = Quality troops + Lesser quantity

Versus

Japanese Samurai = Quality troops + More quantity


- There're many chances in hell that Samurai gonna slaughtered those impudent Roman gaijins!!!
DAI_VIET
QUOTE (tqt @ Dec 1 2004, 02:18 AM)
Neither the Roman nor Japanese would be able to break the 256-man formation of Alexander the Great of Macedonia


*

tqt, actually, the Romans were able to defeat the phalanx formation, and they conquered Greece.

Alexander of Macedonia copied the military tactics from the Spartans.
DAI_VIET
QUOTE (Protoculture @ Dec 1 2004, 09:28 PM)
Romans Legionnaires = Quality troops + Lesser quantity

Versus

Japanese Samurai = Quality troops + More quantity


- There're many chances in hell that Samurai gonna slaughtered those impudent Roman gaijins!!!
*


Oh please, Romans were lesser of the quantity? Do you even know how many legions the Romans had? That's just about quantity.

Now about quality, these Roman legionaires were professional soldiers, they were well-paid to fight in the imperial army. And of course, I am not including the fall of Rome, every empire has its ups and downs.

Samurai, on the other hand erh... one to one combat, they might defeat the Roman; but on a battlefield, there's no way they could match the skills of the Roman army.

And stop bringing those guns out to scare the Romans, guns weren't even introduced in Japan until the Westerners came.
Fil-Am
QUOTE (DAI_VIET @ Dec 1 2004, 09:48 PM)
QUOTE (Protoculture @ Dec 1 2004, 09:28 PM)
Romans Legionnaires = Quality troops + Lesser quantity

Versus

Japanese Samurai = Quality troops + More quantity


- There're many chances in hell that Samurai gonna slaughtered those impudent Roman gaijins!!!
*


Oh please, Romans were lesser of the quantity? Do you even know how many legions the Romans had? That's just about quantity.

Now about quality, these Roman legionaires were professional soldiers, they were well-paid to fight in the imperial army. And of course, I am not including the fall of Rome, every empire has its ups and downs.

Samurai, on the other hand erh... one to one combat, they might defeat the Roman; but on a battlefield, there's no way they could match the skills of the Roman army.

And stop bringing those guns out to scare the Romans, guns weren't even introduced in Japan until the Westerners came.
*



flipcombatmedic
QUOTE (supaflyz @ Nov 29 2004, 09:16 AM)
i think a roman would win because they didnt conquer all that land under king alexander if they didnt know how to fight.  Plus they got great athletic skills because they practice during early age.
*

no offense mate, but king alexander was actually greek. in fact he wanted to fight the romans, but never got a chance to. greek and romans first fight would be in syracuse.
JB_Xyooj
Like i said before the samurai would had crushed the roman army even if
they had the almighty long spear....japanese arrow would probally
picked them off......and who said fighting with honor...was the only way
during the 1500th...Oda nobunaga.....was one of the first to use the mussket
agianst the takeda clan....killing and estimate of 3,500 men.....as one foriegner said
this was indeed one of the worst causltie i seen.....and beside...many samurai foguht
with guns afterward.....but yet some tend to still use the sword

Like and old samurai saying.....my grnadfather would not be proud
of this new way of warfare...but he will still see that samurai still ahve courage
and still fight with honor

and i bet if a samurai calvary ambushed the roman....the roman are good as screw
and even better the samurai had better tatic......

and guess what damn roman....LOL.....we have cannon....BAme....yo white @$$ half
naked roman are dead......LOL


even the true battle of the last samura(No i'm not talking bout tom cursie the last samurai)
I mean takamori Saigo.....in historical event the last samurai who fought against
the imperial army foguht with guns as well....
Fil-Am
QUOTE (JB_Xyooj @ Dec 2 2004, 12:14 PM)
Like i said before the samurai would had crushed the roman army even if
they had the almighty long spear....japanese arrow would probally
picked them off......and who said fighting with honor...was the only way
during the 1500th...Oda nobunaga.....was one of the first to use the mussket
agianst the takeda clan....killing and estimate of 3,500 men.....as one foriegner said
this was indeed one of the worst causltie i seen.....and beside...many samurai foguht
with guns afterward.....but yet some tend to still use the sword

Like and old samurai saying.....my grnadfather would not be proud
of this new way of warfare...but he will still see that samurai still ahve courage
and still fight with honor

and i bet if a samurai calvary ambushed the roman....the roman are good as screw
and even better the samurai had better tatic......

and guess what damn roman....LOL.....we have cannon....BAme....yo white @$$ half
naked roman are dead......LOL


even the true battle of the last samura(No i'm not talking bout tom cursie the last samurai)
I mean takamori Saigo.....in historical event the last samurai who fought against
the imperial army foguht with guns as well....
*


You act like the romans didn't have bow and arrows.Oh yeah no guns, it was the westerners who introduced guns to the Samurai anyway.

Imagine this hurling steel bolts into large groups of Samuari.



Ballista
This weapon was like a large crossbow. It was used to fire bolts at enemy forts and troops.
Rad Raz
Not to mention, the Scorpions that Roman Legions used were same quality effect as balistas.
flipcombatmedic
QUOTE (JB_Xyooj @ Dec 2 2004, 12:14 PM)
Like i said before the samurai would had crushed the roman army even if
they had the almighty long spear....japanese arrow would probally
picked them off......and who said fighting with honor...was the only way
during the 1500th...Oda nobunaga.....was one of the first to use the mussket
agianst the takeda clan....killing and estimate of 3,500 men.....as one foriegner said
this was indeed one of the worst causltie i seen.....and beside...many samurai foguht
with guns afterward.....but yet some tend to still use the sword

Like and old samurai saying.....my grnadfather would not be proud
of this new way of warfare...but he will still see that samurai still ahve courage
and still fight with honor

and i bet if a samurai calvary ambushed the roman....the roman are good as screw
and even better the samurai had better tatic......

and guess what damn roman....LOL.....we have cannon....BAme....yo white @$$ half
naked roman are dead......LOL


even the true battle of the last samura(No i'm not talking bout tom cursie the last samurai)
I mean takamori Saigo.....in historical event the last samurai who fought against
the imperial army foguht with guns as well....
*

i think the real samurais were those who didn't use guns. in fact the mass usage of guns were not established until the warring states, by oda nobunaga.
tqt
Show me that the samurai actually defeated an opponent on the battlefield other than their own. On the other hand, the Roman and Macedonian have defeated numerous enemies and this is a fact, not just hypothetical seranio.

Dai_Viet,

Thanks, I didn't know that icon_smile.gif
Rad Raz
Let me see. How many nations that have been conquered by the Romans with their Legionaries?

Dacia, Thracia, Ptolmaic Empire (Egypt), Seleucid Empire, Carthage, Iberia, Gaul, Germania, Britania, Numidia, Pontus Kingdom, Armenia, Scythia, Parthia (Persia), Greece (including the mighty Sparta), Macedonia, some unknown tribes in all over the europe.

Romans literally owned parts of three continents helped mostly by the Legions. Even Alexander couldn't achieve what the Romans achieved with their military.



Now, how many nations that have been conquered by japanese samurais.......?

None.

And Toyotomi's invasion on Chosun kingdom does not count, since it was during the Colonialism era which weapon of Guns and cannons were invented and used by the samurais. Plus they couldn't even conquere Chosun.


Despite the fact that Japanese samurais mostly fought with each other, not able to have an experience fighting other nation soldiers (exept Chosun and Chinese). They can't be compared to Roman Legions who've fought over 50 different kinds of soldiers from different nations.
lilasiankid
QUOTE (Rad Raz @ Dec 2 2004, 08:15 PM)
Despite the fact that Japanese samurais mostly fought with each other, not able to have an experience fighting other nation soldiers (exept Chosun and Chinese). They can't be compared to Roman Legions who've fought over 50 different kinds of soldiers from different nations.
*


Hahaha....Good point there Raz! Who knows what Japan would be like if they were not isolated on their own Islands......That's why it makes more sense to compare Rome and Han dynasty China.......

BTW......Why do you guys keep talking about Samurai Shooting Romans......Aren't we comparing the two Cultures during the same period and not by their prime? Because if so you would have to compare THOSE Samurai to Medieval Rome or later....

OH WAIT.....the Thread says Samurai vs Roman Soldier.....

Of course the Samurai, More Armour, Better swords, crazy suicidal devotion to the way of the warrior, and COOLNESS Factor!
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2009 Invision Power Services, Inc.