[Dan Howard]

Can anyone point to a foreign army that the Japanese managed to defeat during this time?

[Darryl Aoki]

[Lafayette C Curtis]

Daryl's answer pretty much spot-on as far as I can tell. The Japanese made another intervention in Korea during the wars of the Three Kingdoms to aid their Goguryeo allies against the coalition of the Silla Koreans and the Tang Chinese forces. This is way outside the timeframe of "samurai" warfare, however. Another thing I remember is a small "border dispute" between the Japanese and a Chinese empire where both sides mounted small-scale naval expeditions to a small group of outlying islands, but this war was quite sporadic in nature and was won more with diplomacy than actual fighting. I don't remember the precise time period, however--all I can tell is that the Japanese referred to the central authority of a pre-Tokugawa shogun, so it was definitely between the 12th and the 16th centuries.

BTW, the Mongol defeat also had something to do with the enterprising actions of the Japanese, since in the second invasion they sent numerous raiding parties in small boats to spoil the Mongol preparations and prevent them from landing in one massive force. The Korean and Chinese crews of the Mongol ships, too, seemed to have been somewhat mutinous and some might have actually sabotaged the operation.

[Felix Wang]

One tactical wrinkle has not, I think, been thoroughly explored yet. The nature of the Japanese attack of mixed horsemen and foot has been discussed, and the prediliction of the English for fighting on foot (which did not preclude them from mounting up on occasion).

What would the effect of a "classic" medieval knightly charge be? If the Japanese are in a stable defensive position behind pavises and stakes, their bowmen might well break up such an attack. But, if the Japanese are maneuvering or mounting an attack of their own, the situation might turn out quite differently. The Japanese did not make much (if any?) use of the couched lance, and do not seem to have generally charged with the idea of charging through the enemy. They seem to have charged up to the enemy instead. European horsemen, on the other hand, fought as cavalry units, with the ideal of charging through the enemy ranks and overthrowing as many foes as possible. It is hard to know how well the Japanese would stand up to this sort of attack. Muslim armies had grave problems coping with this sort of attack, unless they had lots of horse archer skirmishers (who couldn't be caught by the charge), and enough space to absorb the charge, and/or vastly greater numbers (to sacrifice to slow down the charge).

Japanese armour may not have been lighter than European armour, but it was also not designed to stop a couched lance.

[Philip S]

[Terry Crain]

Hi Philip,

I appreciate your strong view regarding ninjas and don't doubt your sincereity in offering to educate on their historic role as it relates to this thread, and while I am not a moderator, I am an almost daily reader of this site, as such, I can tell you that this site prides itself on an exchange of opinions and dialogue in a friendly, polite and cordial manner. Even if you disagree with someone's post, I respectfully suggest you should do so without personal attacks or namecalling.

The high level of respectful dialogue is one of the things that makes this site so unique and, IMHO, one of the very best sites on the web.

Best regards,

Terry

[Chad Arnow]

[Lafayette C Curtis]

Hmm. Nobunaga's conquest of Iga? As far as I recall, it was a full campaign of significant duration--not a pitched battle, and if I'm not mistaken it the campaign was notable for its distinct lack of a pitched battle, which was rather unlike Nobunaga's Napoleonic style of warfare. Not to forget that the Iga party catually lost the war, at least if we judge its outcome by the fact that Nobunaga eventually achieved what he set out to do. Though many of the Iga clans managed to escape, they were scattered all over Japan and were no longer able to present a unified front against Nobunaga.

So, while the ninja were effective warriors on their own terms, and were even more effective as plainclothes spies/agents, but they were most empathically not battlefield troops. Unless somebody can convince us otherwise...

[Robin Smith]

[Alex Oster]

Only because they had gotten out of line, started bully-ing the locals, and interfearing in comerce. It was quite a church vs. state confrontation. Though I think this off topic thread is getting off topic? Unless we start comparing the events to the fight against the knights templar after they had gained too much power.

[Lafayette C Curtis]

Totally agreed, Robin. As for the mythical bogeyman thing--regardless of whether they were able to do those deeds or not, there is no doubt whatsoever that they deliberately cultivated such an image. A bit like the way the SEALs or the British Paras like to present themselves as murderous maniacs who goes everywhere armed to the teeth, even in bed.

[Luka Tic]

Most medieval armies were consisted of men at arms,who came from lower layers of society.
They were standard infantry,wearing everything from everyday clothing to heavy armour.
Most European knights of the 14th century wore heavy plate armour and brigandines over chainmaille.
However,this transitional armour did not completely cover a knight's body like the elaborate harnesses of the 16th century.
I don't know much about Japanese armour except that it "jumped" in quality when the Dutch started trading with Japan in the 17th century.
It is my opinion that in a battle between an army consisted of "only" European knights and an army consisted of "only" the Samurai,both sides would be equally matched.
The outcome of this battle would depend purely on the tactics deployed by their generals.


btw Why do some posters always drag ninjas into these discussions?

[Werner Stiegler]

[quote="Risto Rautiainen"]

[Darryl Aoki]

[John H]

Well, in regards to the individual match-up, it looks like a TV crew in NYC is looking to explore this topic:

http://www.thearma.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=23547

[Bill Tsafa]

Just to add my two cents.... there are two things that are undeniable. First Europeans on average are about 4 inches taller and wider. That means more bone to hang muscle on, so on average the European will have a strength advantage. This is of particular importance in a melee where there is a lot of pushing and shoving. One thing we can not account for is the skill and organization of the commanders in such a hypothetical situation, so we should assume they would be equal.

Second, as far as horses, siege weapons, personal weapons, armor, skill I call it it even. Both sides would have high and low skilled warriors as well as high and low quality weapons. The one thing that the Europeans have that the Japanese do not is shields. This is not to say polearms can not match up against shields.... in the case of the Japanese they will have had not training in how to fight against shields and that is a significant factor. The Europeans on the other hand would have training against all Japanese weapon forms.

[Bennison N]

"Ninja" were often used in siege action as well. They would enter the besieged area and have a look around while no-one was looking. This was apparently very common in historical Japanese sieges.

Japanese Pirates often raided towns and they amassed quite large forces at certain times. These pirates would possibly have faced many different cultures as a result of this raiding. They were very successful and widely feared, leading me to believe they would've fared well in these "International" encounters.

Hideyoshi (Toyotomi sama) never really stood a chance in his bid to invade Korea. The Chinese were far too strong at that time. He would've kicked himself if he knew that it would eventually be GIVEN to Japan in 1910. The reason he retreated wasn't because his navy was poorly run at all... It was because his navy was out-classed, out-equipped and out-fought by the Koreans. I think it's the 5000 won bill that shows the guy who made it all happen... The Turtle Ships of the Panakseon class, or Geobukseon (거북선), and Admiral Yi Sun-sin. There were 5 types of cannon on these boats, some of them said to be able to shoot reasonably accurately to half a kilometre.

I have a custom-but-traditionally-made suit of Japanese armour, mengu and all, and some very nice Japanese swords, too. Why don't one of you European Middle Age enthusiasts suit up and we'll have a match? I mean, it won't really be helpful in settling this debate, me not actually being a samurai, and you not actually being a knight, but wouldn't it be lots of fun?

This will be a standing offer... Any time anyone wants to have a match like this, email me.

[Jonathan Eells]

If you're going to have a fantasy battle, why not put the Ninjas against the Berserkers? I'm going to put my money - and put it BIG time, a major position - on the Berserkers "whom steel could not bite". Sword impervious psychotically enraged Norsemen towering over tiny Ninja types? Forget the lack of any known specialized training for the Berserkers, the Ninjas would be flailing away on them to no effect while inexorably falling under savage blows to the tops of their highly trained heads.

Dude, I totally see this. I got a friend in Hollywood, and we could get this green lighted easy. It's Predator Vs. Alien but with Ninjas and Vikings. Rad!

[Bennison N]

I am willing to put money on the Shinobi winning against Berserkers. That's if you ever saw a Ninja Army (even the Army that faced Oda-sama wasn't all Ninja, there was at least the Daimyo, and his retainer Bushi), and if such an Army would fight in a "battle" as we define one. My bet is that they would be more likely to adopt guerilla tactics than risk a pitched battle.

For one thing, what I know of Ninja tactics (even rumoured attacks during WW2) tells me that they would send their best assassin/s to kill the Viking commander/s, most likely while he/they slept in camp, perhaps even stealing his/their heads and weapons to show to the enemy later for perceived psychological effect. Maybe they would send an entire unit to kill as many as possible... This would be done in as silent a manner as humanly possible, under the cover of darkness or a distraction, and would be accompanied by poisoning the main Viking water source/s and/or food source/s.

The Ninja would use poisoned weapons, and throw darts and fire very accurate arrows from a safe distance, taunting to draw the enemy in. They would make sure to choose the battleground and put many nasty traps and ambushes all along and through the area, both on the field and the more obvious routes to get there. Ninja knowledge of poisons is quite developed, and they are free from the restraints of Bushido, and so they WOULD use poison. A Berserker rage would only serve to spread it quicker through the body...

I'd really like to watch it, though... Especially once some of the more resilient Hersirs hit the Ninja line... Awesome.

[Jonathan Eells]

Oooh! Those wascawwy Ninjas! Traps? Poisons??? Pre-emptive beheadings?!?

Poor form.

But your prognosis is still a well argued one. It sounds like ordinary Vikings would do better against the Ninjas, since the run of the mill sort of Norseman was much craftier and more likely to fight by stealth and deceit as well. Why fight, when you can win by trickery and be gone before anybody could say "Bob's Your Uncle"...