Samurai

Shadowalker

Shadowalker

Active member
In my opinion the samurai were the most effective close combat fighting force in history, with there mix of a code of honour, the best swords ever made and martial arts they were the best fighters ever, i was wondering if any of you would disagree, or have any suggestions for anyone who might beat them! (close combat only, no ranged weapons!)
thanks!
 
one on one a samurai would win, but a heavy cavalry of knights would take them in a battle. At least thats what I think, their curved blades seem too light to cut through heavy armor, and once they and their opponents are on horses they have lost their speed advantage.
 
Sorry i meant to say fighters on foot! If i wanted to say fighters on horseback i would probably say that the saracens/ mamelukes (i dont think there the same! not sure) were the best!
 
LeatherNeckRVA said:
one on one a samurai would win, but a heavy cavalry of knights would take them in a battle. At least thats what I think, their curved blades seem too light to cut through heavy armor, and once they and their opponents are on horses they have lost their speed advantage.
Click to expand...

I agree, I think that a Battalion of Roman Legioners would take the Samurais out in a matter of hours, reasons:

- Mass Formations using Heavy Armor Shields.
- Extended reach with thier Pikes and Spears.
- The number of Legioners.
 
samurai

You have to remember however, the samurai style of fighting, well most asian style of fighting is more based on speed. You notice how european military was more armor oriented, plate male and what not. Take for example roman legionaries, quite disciplined proffesional soldiers, with heavy armor and a big ass shield, effective of course, but not very fast, you can't be with that type of equipment. Also take in to concideration weapons. European swords are straight ant typically made for piercing armor and such. With asian weapons you see curviture, made for slicing, because there is not so much armor in asian military, they have lighter troops. Samurai wore leather and some ceramics, which gave them the flexibility they needed to perform their great martial arts, and of course the speed. Samurai had very good cavalry generally, deadly weapons on horseback like the naginata, and also great horse archers. Personally I admire the samurai and their code, and perfectly made sword design.
 
Ah, Samurai. My favored warrior class.

Endiminion had it right when pointing out the differences in styles of waging war. But everyone left out the fact that the Samurai were only one part of a feudal Japanese military force. The Samurai were the nobles and officers, there were also common spearmen, archers and the like. A General worth his salt would use all of these factors in shaping the battlefield to his tastes. A force of solely Samurai would have been easily torn apart in any full-scale battle.

As for the individual discipline, the Samurai were pretty hard to beat. And as others have mentioned earlier, they were a warrior society. Anyone catch that difference between the words 'warrior' and 'soldier'? What made the Romans great militarily were their soldiers, there was little room for warriors (they wiped out the warriors of Gaul for example). But it's also the fact that they lacked warriors to inspire later on as the Empire declined which led to their downfall (I study a bit of Roman history since I'm taking Latin, their military and leadership went to hell as it died.).

But I over-reach myself. I have great respect for the Samurai style of discipline, especially the insistence on living each moment of life to the fullest. As it might be gone the next (not too uncommon in feudal Japan, what with the wars and deadly weather). That acceptance of the inevitability of death is core to their discipline.

The eventual downfall of the Samurai and Legions in my opinion are a lesson in the need to strike a balance between what makes up a warrior and a soldier. They are two styles of discipline, kinda like yin and yang. We need the mass discipline of the soldier to project our might, but we also need the discipline of the warrior to define who we are.

Recommended reading (on the warrior ethic in general): The Code of the Warrior by Shannon E. French.
 
I'd have to completely disagree. The most effective militaries for their respective times were probably
1.) The Monguls
2.) The Romans
3.) The Macedonians

Now the Monguls, we know for certain to have proved themselves superior to all sorts of Oriental warrior types, most notably China (who had all the same advantages as the Samuri). Its quite well known that were it not for a fortuitous storm, the Japanese didn't have a chance in hell of withstanding a Mongolian invasion. The Monguls also made mincemeat of European armored knights. I doubt that the Samuri and their armies could really compare. Even without their bows, one on one it would be tough to beat a Mongul.
 
Well, the Samurai way of life and their training was Jiu - Jitsu, which I personally train, believe you me, even without a weaponl they could beat anyone on foot. (non ballistic of course).

What I would love to see would be Samurai fighting Chinese Imperial Guards, Jiu - Jitsu vs Kung Fu.
 
Give the Mongul his horse but take away his bow and he'll kick the crap out of the Samurai (with the Samurai on or off a horse). Take the Mongul off his horse, and he's not a Mongul anymore, now is he?

Truthfully, the Monguls were incredibly eclectic and adapted Chinese martial arts and weapons for their own use. Mind you, they were not bereft of martial arts, but China is probably unsurpassed in the overall development of them ... closely followed by Japan. Take into account the fact that the Monguls invaded China with the numbers heavily stacked against them and with the Chinese taking defensive positions behind walls, etc. So you can draw your own conclusions for what a one on one fight would have turned out like.

Now please understand, I love the Samurai and all that it entails. You are absolutely right, they are among the most formidable warriors ever to exist. Its an interesting contrast. The Mongul is tough and proficient in war because of the sheer brutality of his homeland, Mongolia/Siberia. He has known war all his life and he has survived. The Samurai has sought to perfect his talents as a warrior all of his life. He knows unarmed combat, but the sword is his greatest proficiency. Both the Mongul and the Samurai are impressive, but history would say the Mongul is probably the better warrior. Truthfully, we'll never know.
 
The mongols did try to invade japan twice, the first time a typhoon blew the fleet away the second time i think the fleet did reach japan but were defeated - i saw a program about the katana/samurai sword and the japanese managed to sneek aboard the mongol fleet (several samurai per boat) and they killed or disabled a large portion of the fleet!
 
Interesting. I hadn't heard of that, can you give me a reference to find out more about it? How much of the Mongul invasion force made it onto the island of Japan?

EDIT: Okay, rather than doubleposting, I'll just insert this into this post. BLEAH on the database crash!! There went the most interesting part of the convo!

My overall objection to the proposal that the Samurai is the greatest warrior ever to exist, is the fact that ... well, they never did anything big. The Greeks, the Mongols, the Romans ... all of those offer us some very obvious PROOF that they were badass. The Japanese were never brave enough to try to take on China head on for any length of time, and the overall exploits of the medieval Japanese are hardly worth noticing on a global scale.

What we have left over is the overhyped Samurai as we know it today. They were skilled swordsmen, but I don't believe that they were absolutely the best of all time. Their martial arts are impressive in their modern form, but how much of that was developped during the time of medieval Japan and how much of it came later? If they were so earthshatteringly great, why don't we see them do something like the Greeks did? Why didn't they go rampaging across the globe with their overwhelming superiorness? (Note that I choose the Greeks for comparison because they are a tiny country, just like Japan, and they shocked and overwhelmed the world.)

For argument's sake, let's just assume that I don't know Japanese history in depth. So will somebody please tell me some valid historical reason for me to be impressed? The great dilema I'm seeing is separating HYPE from FACT, which is difficult sometimes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top