Posts: 1,524 Location: Sydney, Australia
Sat 28 Nov, 2015 7:16 am
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.
Posts: 645
Sat 28 Nov, 2015 8:02 am
Musket and pike defeating knights? I wouldn't be so sure about that, muskets and pikes are gone now and Knights are still around.
[ Linked Image ]
Posts: 124 Location: United States
Sat 28 Nov, 2015 10:53 am
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
Posts: 57 Location: Mount Perry, Ohio
Sat 28 Nov, 2015 11:09 am
I pose the ultimate question- Batman or Mr Spock?
Posts: 1,972 Location: Nipmuc USA
Sat 28 Nov, 2015 12:01 pm
Bob Haynes wrote: |
I pose the ultimate question- Batman or Mr Spock? |
Spock, it is only logical.
Posts: 41 Location: Australia
Sat 28 Nov, 2015 6:22 pm
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
Posts: 1,504 Location: Brisbane, Australia
Sun 29 Nov, 2015 2:11 am
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.
Posts: 1,456 Location: Laurel, MD, USA
Sun 29 Nov, 2015 7:12 am
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
Posts: 3,646 Location: Midwest
Sun 29 Nov, 2015 7:30 am
Fan Boy!
Just wanted to make sure you didn't feel like your post was ignored! :-)
Posts: 41 Location: Australia
Sun 29 Nov, 2015 8:30 am
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.
Posts: 630 Location: San Diego, California
Sun 29 Nov, 2015 9:57 am
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. :)
Posts: 1,084 Location: Finland
Sun 29 Nov, 2015 11:05 am
Sam Barris wrote: |
We're all missing the big question. Who would win amongst samurai/knight/pirate/ninja zombies? |
Chuck Norris.
Posts: 630 Location: San Diego, California
Sun 29 Nov, 2015 11:18 am
Mikko Kuusirati wrote: |
Chuck Norris. |
Well played, sir. :D
Posts: 1,504 Location: Brisbane, Australia
Sun 29 Nov, 2015 1:13 pm
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?
Posts: 1,504 Location: Brisbane, Australia
Sun 29 Nov, 2015 1:29 pm
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
Posts: 57 Location: Mount Perry, Ohio
Sun 29 Nov, 2015 4:56 pm
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.
Posts: 1,504 Location: Brisbane, Australia
Sun 29 Nov, 2015 6:50 pm
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.
Posts: 1,456 Location: Laurel, MD, USA
Sun 29 Nov, 2015 6:50 pm
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! :p
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