| Author |
Message |
|
William P
|
 Posted: Sat 28 Nov, 2015 7:16 am Post subject: Re: Tired of Samurai vs. Knight Arguments |
 |
|
| Timo Nieminen wrote: | | Both the European knight and the samurai lost their battlefield supremacy to pike and musket armies. Which says something about the importance of administration, logistics, and economics. The classic "knight vs samurai" isn't particularly relevant to battlefield outcomes, even hypothetical ones. Unless they're very artificial, like 100 knights vs 100 samurai, with no other supporting forces. But that's pretty silly, since knights and samurai weren't designed to operate like that, but as parts of complete military systems. |
now THAT would be an interesting comparison since around the same time both areas hasd similar, but not identical systems of infantry on the field,
i'd say the only major difference is that the japanese made use of archers even in the edo period i believe some houses and municipal authorities kept small squads of archers and arquebusiers to deal with uprisings and other trouble that a few policemen couldnt handle
but the inclusion of archers right up until the end of the sengoku jidai... even though it sounds like by the end, they were very much supplanted by arquebusiers as the dominant ranged infantry
also perhaps differences in the way the japanese deployed their yari infantry, the length of the yari compared to late 16th century european pikemen, how they were integrated with arquebusiers and archers
i am led to believe the japanese didnt as much engage in spear blocks grinding against one another like in erenaissance battlefields...
also the fact that cavalry were much less used to couched lance charges in organised shock formations supposedly, only the takeda were trained and conditioned enough to do a full shock cavalry charge with spears like european men at arms or other lancer cavalry
not to mention that for various reasons, the japanese didnt widely adopt wheellock firearms, limiting the development of pistolier cavalry...
in terms of firearms the cultures seem roughly equal
the europeans developed the forked rest heavy msket by the 1570's... however the japanese had the ozutsu hand cannons
the bigest difference i'd say is the japanese did not deploy field artiller in numbers or a levels of technological sophistication anywhere near european armies where the art and science of gunnery was advancing rapidly...
that sort of development though was mirrored by the koreans.
|
|
   |
 |
|
Pieter B.
|
| Posted: Sat 28 Nov, 2015 8:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
Musket and pike defeating knights? I wouldn't be so sure about that, muskets and pikes are gone now and Knights are still around.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Henry R. Gower
|
| Posted: Sat 28 Nov, 2015 10:53 am Post subject: Knights vs. Samurai |
|
|
I take my hat off to Mr. Cleeton, for the most humorous photograph on these posts, ever. The hamster about to jump ship, it's just too funny for words.
On a more somber note, I learned something about the Portuguese, Timor and hiring of both Samurai and European mercenaries by the same potentate. I never read that anywhere and have read a decent number of books on Feudal Japan.
So, thanks for that also.
Henry
|
|
|
|
|
Bob Haynes
|
| Posted: Sat 28 Nov, 2015 11:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
I pose the ultimate question- Batman or Mr Spock?
|
|
|
|
|
Glen A Cleeton
|
| Posted: Sat 28 Nov, 2015 12:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bob Haynes wrote: | | I pose the ultimate question- Batman or Mr Spock? |
Spock, it is only logical.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nathan Johnson
Location: Australia Joined: 05 Apr 2008
Posts: 41
|
| Posted: Sat 28 Nov, 2015 6:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
The problem is that people usually only look at Japan for 'hypothetical' samurai vs european conflict, when they should really be looking in the rest of asia. Japanese and europeans actually fought alongside and against each other in conflicts everywhere from Thailand to Jakata , as privateers/pirates, mercenaries, soldiers and adventures . Anyone interested need only look on wikipedia for: red seal ships, Kingdom of Ayutthaya, Ekathotsarot / Sanpet iii or his guard captan Yamada Nagamasa
|
|
|
|
|
|
Timo Nieminen
|
| Posted: Sun 29 Nov, 2015 2:11 am Post subject: Re: Tired of Samurai vs. Knight Arguments |
|
|
| William P wrote: | | Timo Nieminen wrote: | | But that's pretty silly, since knights and samurai weren't designed to operate like that, but as parts of complete military systems. |
now THAT would be an interesting comparison since around the same time both areas hasd similar, but not identical systems of infantry on the field,
[...]
in terms of firearms the cultures seem roughly equal
[...]
the bigest difference i'd say is the japanese did not deploy field artiller in numbers or a levels of technological sophistication anywhere near european armies where the art and science of gunnery was advancing rapidly...
that sort of development though was mirrored by the koreans. |
The late Ming did musket tests, evaluating European, Ottoman, and Japanese muskets. They thought the Ottoman ones were best, but they were pretty close.
The Ottomans provide a non-hypothetical comparison with Europe for warfare c. 1600. The hypothetical Japanese-European comparison should look closely at the Ottoman-European comparison. Also Japanese performance against Korea and China in 1592-1598 (Hideyoshi's invasion). I'm not sure whether looking at the performance of small groups of mercenaries, or small naval battles would say too much about the perfomance of large armies.
The two main Portuguese-Japanese naval battles I know of are:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fukuda_Bay
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nossa_Senhora_da_Gra%C3%A7a_incident
The naval battle between a Chinese pirate/Ming-loyalist force and the Dutch during Koxinga's (Zheng Chenggong) invasion of Taiwan in the 1600s is also interesting. For information, mostly on the land battle, start at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Fort_Zeelandia
There were big differences in artillery and fortress development. In East Asia, fortress walls were often thick enough (e.g, 15 metres) so armies didn't try to use artillery (gunpowder or mechanical) as wall-breakers. Which didn't encourage the same rapid development of artillery as in Europe. Still, the Ming army had effective enough artillery, which gave the Japanese a hard time in Hideyoshi's invasion of Korea.
Naval artillery was one area in which China and Korea developed quite well.
"In addition to being efficient, all pole arms were quite nice to look at." - Cherney Berg, A hideous history of weapons, Collier 1963.
|
|
 |
|
|
Pieter B.
|
| Posted: Sun 29 Nov, 2015 4:08 am Post subject: Re: Tired of Samurai vs. Knight Arguments |
|
|
| Timo Nieminen wrote: | | William P wrote: | | Timo Nieminen wrote: | | But that's pretty silly, since knights and samurai weren't designed to operate like that, but as parts of complete military systems. |
now THAT would be an interesting comparison since around the same time both areas hasd similar, but not identical systems of infantry on the field,
[...]
in terms of firearms the cultures seem roughly equal
[...]
the bigest difference i'd say is the japanese did not deploy field artiller in numbers or a levels of technological sophistication anywhere near european armies where the art and science of gunnery was advancing rapidly...
that sort of development though was mirrored by the koreans. |
The late Ming did musket tests, evaluating European, Ottoman, and Japanese muskets. They thought the Ottoman ones were best, but they were pretty close.
The Ottomans provide a non-hypothetical comparison with Europe for warfare c. 1600. The hypothetical Japanese-European comparison should look closely at the Ottoman-European comparison. Also Japanese performance against Korea and China in 1592-1598 (Hideyoshi's invasion). I'm not sure whether looking at the performance of small groups of mercenaries, or small naval battles would say too much about the perfomance of large armies.
The two main Portuguese-Japanese naval battles I know of are:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fukuda_Bay
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nossa_Senhora_da_Gra%C3%A7a_incident
The naval battle between a Chinese pirate/Ming-loyalist force and the Dutch during Koxinga's (Zheng Chenggong) invasion of Taiwan in the 1600s is also interesting. For information, mostly on the land battle, start at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Fort_Zeelandia
There were big differences in artillery and fortress development. In East Asia, fortress walls were often thick enough (e.g, 15 metres) so armies didn't try to use artillery (gunpowder or mechanical) as wall-breakers. Which didn't encourage the same rapid development of artillery as in Europe. Still, the Ming army had effective enough artillery, which gave the Japanese a hard time in Hideyoshi's invasion of Korea.
Naval artillery was one area in which China and Korea developed quite well. |
The Nossa Senhora incident illustrates well how advantageous a ship with high freeboard is in case of boarding. Did Ming ships actually have gunports in their hull? I once read the ships often used a reverse clinker built which would make them rather unsuited for mounting increasingly heavy cannons.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Matthew Amt
|
| Posted: Sun 29 Nov, 2015 7:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
Over on the Historum board it's more often Rome versus China, or Romans versus medieval armies (with fully armored 15th century knights getting all the focus, of course!). A few of us are bold enough to say that just *maybe* Roman metallurgy wasn't so hideously crappy as to be more of a detriment than an advantage, or that men who trained daily might not get get trampled like a kindergarten class, and get scathingly called "fan boys"...
Matthew
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joe Fults
|
| Posted: Sun 29 Nov, 2015 7:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
Fan Boy!
Just wanted to make sure you didn't feel like your post was ignored! :-)
"The goal shouldn’t be to avoid being evil; it should be to actively do good." - Danah Boyd
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nathan Johnson
Location: Australia Joined: 05 Apr 2008
Posts: 41
|
| Posted: Sun 29 Nov, 2015 8:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
Considering renaissance armies often used only partial armour and a re-envisioning of classical era tactics and yet were often able to defeat knights I would think Romans, and for that matter various other ancient armies should stand just as good a chance as anyone else and not be so quickly dismissed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sam Barris
|
| Posted: Sun 29 Nov, 2015 9:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
We're all missing the big question. Who would win amongst samurai/knight/pirate/ninja zombies? When the dead rise, we'll be glad we did our homework.
Seriously though, yes, the knight vs. samurai debate is only useful insofar as it reveals individuals with whom I am almost certain to not have a stimulating discussion about historical martial arts. Hearing yet again about how the katana is the best sword EVAR and sharper than anything else ever made serves roughly the same purpose. 
Pax,
Sam Barris
"Any nation that draws too great a distinction between its scholars and its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards, and its fighting done by fools." —Thucydides
|
|
 |
|
Mikko Kuusirati
|
| Posted: Sun 29 Nov, 2015 11:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Sam Barris wrote: | | We're all missing the big question. Who would win amongst samurai/knight/pirate/ninja zombies? |
Chuck Norris.
"And sin, young man, is when you treat people like things. Including yourself. That's what sin is."
— Terry Pratchett, Carpe Jugulum
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sam Barris
|
| Posted: Sun 29 Nov, 2015 11:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Mikko Kuusirati wrote: | | Chuck Norris. |
Well played, sir. 
Pax,
Sam Barris
"Any nation that draws too great a distinction between its scholars and its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards, and its fighting done by fools." —Thucydides
|
|
|
|
|
|
Timo Nieminen
|
| Posted: Sun 29 Nov, 2015 1:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Nathan Johnson wrote: | | Considering renaissance armies often used only partial armour and a re-envisioning of classical era tactics and yet were often able to defeat knights I would think Romans, and for that matter various other ancient armies should stand just as good a chance as anyone else and not be so quickly dismissed. |
Gunpowder weapons gave Renaissance armies good anti-armour weapons. Ancient mechanical artillery would provide the same, but with the same numbers and portability?
"In addition to being efficient, all pole arms were quite nice to look at." - Cherney Berg, A hideous history of weapons, Collier 1963.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Timo Nieminen
|
| Posted: Sun 29 Nov, 2015 1:29 pm Post subject: Re: Tired of Samurai vs. Knight Arguments |
|
|
| Pieter B. wrote: | | The Nossa Senhora incident illustrates well how advantageous a ship with high freeboard is in case of boarding. Did Ming ships actually have gunports in their hull? I once read the ships often used a reverse clinker built which would make them rather unsuited for mounting increasingly heavy cannons. |
I don't know of any Ming (or Korean, or Chinese) warships with gunports in their hull before 1600. They were built after that (recorded in a book printed in 1606, with details of design and armament unknown, but they were heavy warships), and may have been influenced by Western ships. At least some ships with gunports in the hull were deliberately imitating Western ships and had partly Western crews (Chinese pirates (c.f. Koxinga), 1630s). European descriptions of 17th century hull-gunport ships reported only light cannon.
Gunports in protective superstuctures are known from the 16th century, in Chinese, Korean, and Japanese ships. I've seen Japanese art showing multiple levels, but those are probably for hand-held guns. Multiple levels of heavy artillery in the superstructure would be detrimental to stability.
Early East Asian naval artillery seems to often have been (a) light, (b) not mounted on wheeled carriages, and (c) breech-loading. (a), (b), and (c) all reinforce each other.
For some info and illustrations, see http://greatmingmilitary.blogspot.com.au/2015...rison.html
"In addition to being efficient, all pole arms were quite nice to look at." - Cherney Berg, A hideous history of weapons, Collier 1963.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pieter B.
|
| Posted: Sun 29 Nov, 2015 3:36 pm Post subject: Re: Tired of Samurai vs. Knight Arguments |
|
|
| Timo Nieminen wrote: | | Pieter B. wrote: | | The Nossa Senhora incident illustrates well how advantageous a ship with high freeboard is in case of boarding. Did Ming ships actually have gunports in their hull? I once read the ships often used a reverse clinker built which would make them rather unsuited for mounting increasingly heavy cannons. |
I don't know of any Ming (or Korean, or Chinese) warships with gunports in their hull before 1600. They were built after that (recorded in a book printed in 1606, with details of design and armament unknown, but they were heavy warships), and may have been influenced by Western ships. At least some ships with gunports in the hull were deliberately imitating Western ships and had partly Western crews (Chinese pirates (c.f. Koxinga), 1630s). European descriptions of 17th century hull-gunport ships reported only light cannon.
Gunports in protective superstuctures are known from the 16th century, in Chinese, Korean, and Japanese ships. I've seen Japanese art showing multiple levels, but those are probably for hand-held guns. Multiple levels of heavy artillery in the superstructure would be detrimental to stability.
Early East Asian naval artillery seems to often have been (a) light, (b) not mounted on wheeled carriages, and (c) breech-loading. (a), (b), and (c) all reinforce each other.
For some info and illustrations, see http://greatmingmilitary.blogspot.com.au/2015...rison.html |
Thanks for the reply, I had suspected as much.
I believe Europeans only started putting gunports in their hull around 1510-1520, prior to that they were mainly lighter pieces put in the fore and aft castle with perhaps a few heavier cannons on the main deck. Even much later into the 16th century it still seems carracks with gigantic fore and aft castles were in use while Galleons only started to be used slowly.
I believe this is a decent picture of one of the later Carracks. Only the cannons on the main deck could have been very substantial.
https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8076/8268678885_07510e099c_b.jpg
This 1540 picture of the Portguese Indian Armada shows both the Carrack and early Galleon, although it seems the galleon still has no gunports. It does have a noticeably lower forecastle
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/82/Galleon%2C_Carracks%2C_Galley_and_Galeota-_Routemap_of_the_Red_Sea-1540_by_D._Jo%C3%A3o_de_Castro.jpg
And another from 1540
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/40/Portuguese_Carracks_off_a_Rocky_Coast.jpg
The Mary Rose did have gunports quite early but we all know how that ended 
Still, I wonder how the Ming navy was able to defeat the Portuguese in their early encounters.
|
|
|
|
|
Bob Haynes
|
| Posted: Sun 29 Nov, 2015 4:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joe Fults wrote: |
Just wanted to make sure you didn't feel like your post was ignored! :-) |
Agreed, and same goes with everyone else contributing to the topic. Despite my partaking in the playfulness found in this thread, I don't wish to discredit those making intelligent conversation, I tip my hat to you gents rather.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Timo Nieminen
|
| Posted: Sun 29 Nov, 2015 6:50 pm Post subject: Re: Tired of Samurai vs. Knight Arguments |
|
|
| Pieter B. wrote: | | Still, I wonder how the Ming navy was able to defeat the Portuguese in their early encounters. |
Superior numbers. And respectably good warships. At the First Battle of Tunmen/Tamao, the Portuguese artillery appears to have been superior. But the Chinese artillery wasn't terrible; in the Second Battle of Tunmen/Tamao (the Battle of Xicaowan), the Chinese reportedly sank one Portuguese ship by cannon-fire.
"In addition to being efficient, all pole arms were quite nice to look at." - Cherney Berg, A hideous history of weapons, Collier 1963.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Matthew Amt
|
| Posted: Sun 29 Nov, 2015 6:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joe Fults wrote: | Fan Boy!
Just wanted to make sure you didn't feel like your post was ignored! :-) |
Ha, thanks! Lemme find my caligae so I can give you a big KISS! 
Matthew
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum
|
This is a standard topic