Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2008 13:37:44 GMT
So this is a bit late but hey I'll add to this. The samurai were quite advanced in their own right however if you compare them to other armored warriors during the middle ages they were not the best. As an avid fan of samurai culture and ryu-ha, I love the way of the samurai. I can also say though that they are not the best warriors in the world if you look at it from the way of who can beat who. I'm sure a samurai would have difficulty against a Teutonic knight who is armored from head to toe in plate steel, wielding a great sword or for that matter even just a mace and shield. Japanese armor was indeed a bit on the lighter side when it comes to armor but also keep in mind the slighter frame of the average Japanese warrior. The lighter armor also does translate into being less resistant to extreme impact damage. A good blow to the chest from a heavy mace or flail would put a samurai out of commission. Why? The chest plate would dent in and shatter the sternum. Hydrostatic shock would occur within the chest cavity and the samurai would go down. Besides, how well can you fight with a 2" deep intentation in your chest? If that were a sword tip, that would have pierced heart and/or lung.
Just my 2c.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 14, 2008 11:13:33 GMT
The standard curiass from japan weighed similar to one from europe, about 50-70 lbs(exceptions abound on both sides). Where has there ever been a cuirass weighing 50-70 lbs (25-35 kilograms)? Perhaps jousting armour or armour made for parades, but nothing meant to be worn in the field.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 14, 2008 9:17:35 GMT
I think that the idea of a the 'great samurai warrior' is based almost entirely on their isolation from the rest of the world. If you were to pluck up Japan and put it in the middle of, say, Turkey during the exact same time-frame, there's a high probability that they would have been tromped on multiple times.
~330bce: Alexander would crush them with the phalanx ~100ce: Rome would have destroyed them using unit-based military tactics ~1095ce: Crusaders may not have destroyed them, but would certainly have no problem annexing their lands to get to Jerusalem. ~1263ce: Mongols would have destroyed them since they would be in Turkey and wouldn't have mother nature on their side. ~1400ce: first katana as we know them today are developed
Of course, there's alot of thing postulated with this, but if the Japanese culture were in the middle east at the exact same time-frames, there's a good chance that they would be just one of the forgotten/dead cultures we read in history books.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 14, 2008 9:56:50 GMT
Hydrostatic shock would occur within the chest cavity and the samurai would go down. Doubtful unless the mace was fired out of a cannon... Some sources say that a sledgehammer can yield about 400 joules from a strong person... after going through the armour most of that would be dissipated and the resultant energy transfer to the body would be nothing near the magnitude of firearm energy... even if we accept hydrostatic shock in principle (seems to me that it is still debated in some manner or another) there is probably no need to go looking for accounts of people who are were not immediately incapacitated from gunshot wounds...
|
|
Marc Ridgeway
Member
Retired Global Moderator
"The best cost less when you buy it the first time." - Papabear
Posts: 3,122
|
Post by Marc Ridgeway on Nov 14, 2008 14:12:47 GMT
I think that the idea of a the 'great samurai warrior' is based almost entirely on their isolation from the rest of the world. If you were to pluck up Japan and put it in the middle of, say, Turkey during the exact same time-frame, there's a high probability that they would have been tromped on multiple times. ~330bce: Alexander would crush them with the phalanx ~100ce: Rome would have destroyed them using unit-based military tactics ~1095ce: Crusaders may not have destroyed them, but would certainly have no problem annexing their lands to get to Jerusalem. ~1263ce: Mongols would have destroyed them since they would be in Turkey and wouldn't have mother nature on their side. ~1400ce: first katana as we know them today are developed Of course, there's alot of thing postulated with this, but if the Japanese culture were in the middle east at the exact same time-frames, there's a good chance that they would be just one of the forgotten/dead cultures we read in history books. I don't think that you can base any kind of point on that much supposition. First of all I disagree hardily with your katana date...by 1400 you're already in the Muromachi period, so you've nicely discounted the swords of Masamune... Second of all , if you pluck any culture out of their time and place, there is always a culture that could defeat them with superior weapons or tactics. The thing about that is , military leaders will learn, and adapt to new tactics... It's interesting how you wish to do so much speculation to try to cast Japan as a "forgotten, dead culture" Is it personal? If the culture had evolved at a different place, with different external stimuli , it would have evolved differently...there's no value at looking at what you may imagine would happen if you pluck Japan out of Japan, and deposit it in another region... Further, you begin by speculating about the Samurai as a warrior, then proceed to give examples of tactics, and weaponry... What you have commented on is the military structure and leadership... not on whether Samurai were "great warriors" Best way to prove that point is to fight one... or in their abscense just choose some ko-ryu shinhan and fight him...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 14, 2008 15:55:38 GMT
I think that the idea of a the 'great samurai warrior' is based almost entirely on their isolation from the rest of the world. If you were to pluck up Japan and put it in the middle of, say, Turkey during the exact same time-frame, there's a high probability that they would have been tromped on multiple times. ~330bce: Alexander would crush them with the phalanx ~100ce: Rome would have destroyed them using unit-based military tactics ~1095ce: Crusaders may not have destroyed them, but would certainly have no problem annexing their lands to get to Jerusalem. ~1263ce: Mongols would have destroyed them since they would be in Turkey and wouldn't have mother nature on their side. ~1400ce: first katana as we know them today are developed Of course, there's alot of thing postulated with this, but if the Japanese culture were in the middle east at the exact same time-frames, there's a good chance that they would be just one of the forgotten/dead cultures we read in history books. I don't think that you can base any kind of point on that much supposition. First of all I disagree hardily with your katana date...by 1400 you're already in the Muromachi period, so you've nicely discounted the swords of Masamune... Second of all , if you pluck any culture out of their time and place, there is always a culture that could defeat them with superior weapons or tactics. The thing about that is , military leaders will learn, and adapt to new tactics... It's interesting how you wish to do so much speculation to try to cast Japan as a "forgotten, dead culture" Is it personal? If the culture had evolved at a different place, with different external stimuli , it would have evolved differently...there's no value at looking at what you may imagine would happen if you pluck Japan out of Japan, and deposit it in another region... Further, you begin by speculating about the Samurai as a warrior, then proceed to give examples of tactics, and weaponry... What you have commented on is the military structure and leadership... not on whether Samurai were "great warriors" Best way to prove that point is to fight one... or in their abscense just choose some ko-ryu shinhan and fight him... +1 Oh and red96, video tape it when you fight the Ko-Ryu Shinhan, be sure and use live steel! *grabs popcorn* this is gonna be a hit on youtube!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 14, 2008 21:05:54 GMT
lol....there's nothing personal here at all. In fact, I have a great respect for Japan both in their ancient times as well as current culture. By 'forgotten culture', I'm limiting it only to sword collecting. To expound on that, you don't have alot of people collecting Macedonian or Babylonian arms and armor. The Babylonians, as we know them today, is a dead culture and while it's true that their peoples have moved in a different direction, their Babylonian culture is dead IMHO....and it's just that.
Secondly, I know that my hypothesis would never work since the external forces and influence of neighboring cultures would have surely completely changed the way that the Japanese would have conducted war even from the earliest time.
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Nov 30, 2008 0:06:58 GMT
The standard curiass from japan weighed similar to one from europe, about 50-70 lbs(exceptions abound on both sides). Where has there ever been a cuirass weighing 50-70 lbs (25-35 kilograms)? Perhaps jousting armour or armour made for parades, but nothing meant to be worn in the field. I mispoke - by cuirass I meant entire panoply.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2008 18:24:20 GMT
I think that the idea of a the 'great samurai warrior' is based almost entirely on their isolation from the rest of the world. If you were to pluck up Japan and put it in the middle of, say, Turkey during the exact same time-frame, there's a high probability that they would have been tromped on multiple times. ~330bce: Alexander would crush them with the phalanx ~100ce: Rome would have destroyed them using unit-based military tactics ~1095ce: Crusaders may not have destroyed them, but would certainly have no problem annexing their lands to get to Jerusalem. ~1263ce: Mongols would have destroyed them since they would be in Turkey and wouldn't have mother nature on their side. ~1400ce: first katana as we know them today are developed Of course, there's alot of thing postulated with this, but if the Japanese culture were in the middle east at the exact same time-frames, there's a good chance that they would be just one of the forgotten/dead cultures we read in history books. I don't think that you can base any kind of point on that much supposition. First of all I disagree hardily with your katana date...by 1400 you're already in the Muromachi period, so you've nicely discounted the swords of Masamune... Second of all , if you pluck any culture out of their time and place, there is always a culture that could defeat them with superior weapons or tactics. The thing about that is , military leaders will learn, and adapt to new tactics... It's interesting how you wish to do so much speculation to try to cast Japan as a "forgotten, dead culture" Is it personal? If the culture had evolved at a different place, with different external stimuli , it would have evolved differently...there's no value at looking at what you may imagine would happen if you pluck Japan out of Japan, and deposit it in another region... Further, you begin by speculating about the Samurai as a warrior, then proceed to give examples of tactics, and weaponry... What you have commented on is the military structure and leadership... not on whether Samurai were "great warriors" Best way to prove that point is to fight one... or in their abscense just choose some ko-ryu shinhan and fight him... Now you're surely absolutely right, but I like to think that in each of these situations Japan was lifted to that place, with the situation Japan was in at that time, not that Japan was left there in 300 bc and on, how would that be? So that neither of the peoples had a chance to have any experiences from each other. And I heard that a European ship, (portugese?) came to japan and beat some samurais once, but that's probably only a myth, or has it happened?
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Dec 2, 2008 5:13:39 GMT
It indeed happened. I can't recall the specific circumstances but I was reading the primary source recently and the story was basically that a group of samurai raided a portugese vessel and, by suprise more than anything else, killed several sailors. Then, the rest of the men at arms aboard that ship formed a pike formation at the forcastle and killed every samurai who boarded.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2008 5:50:34 GMT
I might add, that prior to Japan closing of the Island from the know world, Ronin, or Japanese mercs were in demand on the main land, after the border closure, any Ronin that attempted to go back were ordered killd.........
SanMarc.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2008 22:07:58 GMT
The samurai beat the mongols soundly with the help of mother nature. And they certainly did well against korea. However, samurai warfare was primarily between other samurai, there really wasn't too much outside contact like you see elsewhere is cultures like mongolia, china, india, and europe. Those went back and forth in both cases. There were times they soundly whupped up on the Koreans, and times when the Koreans soundly whupped up on them. Long story short, neither was able to sustain anything like a military foothold on the other's territory. As for the Mongols, they ran wild on the Japanese for a while, but once the Samurai stopped bickering and assembled an army that sort of, kinda looked like about the same size as the Mongols had, they wound up with several cases of tactical draws and strategic victories. Mother Nature did all the ass-kicking in those wars...
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Dec 20, 2008 3:37:43 GMT
The samurai beat the mongols soundly with the help of mother nature. And they certainly did well against korea. However, samurai warfare was primarily between other samurai, there really wasn't too much outside contact like you see elsewhere is cultures like mongolia, china, india, and europe. Those went back and forth in both cases. There were times they soundly whupped up on the Koreans, and times when the Koreans soundly whupped up on them. Long story short, neither was able to sustain anything like a military foothold on the other's territory. As for the Mongols, they ran wild on the Japanese for a while, but once the Samurai stopped bickering and assembled an army that sort of, kinda looked like about the same size as the Mongols had, they wound up with several cases of tactical draws and strategic victories. Mother Nature did all the ass-kicking in those wars... Agreed, sorry my post was horribly unclear. By doing well I didn't necessarily mean that they won every victory by a decisive margin, merely that they did prove that they could hold their own against a foreign army.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 22, 2008 14:52:31 GMT
A lot of interesting points have been made with regard to how the Samurai would fair on in various hypothetical scenarios. I think we are making a mistake in focusing on the minor details in warfare rather then the large ones.
Here is what I think is important with relation to how historic Japanese warriors perform:
a-Japan is a multiple Island fortress with mountains, valleys, rivers and forests. This is a significant factor in home defense and fighting tactics. Japan is also relatively small, so we would expect them to almost always be familiar with the battle terrain.
b-The Japanese did not venture off to far from their homeland. So we might expect them to be less comfortable fighting in foreign lands.
c-logistics would normally not be a major issue to the Japanese fighting close to home. Crossing a desert or vast continent might prove very challenging.
My conclusion is that their Island Fortress background would help them greatly in home defense but also makes less prepared to conqueror the world. This is not to say that they could not do it, but that they would likely have to make a lot of internal changes. We saw this happen in the late 19th century as Japan began importing on a large scale, and very rapidly, western culture and industry so that they could be competitive economically and militarily.
Back to the original topic "Samurai Armor and It's Functions". I seen authentic Japanese armor and, more importantly, having seen replica Japanese armor in action. It serves the same function as European armor. Despite what is looks like or is made of, it does the same thing and covers the same bodyparts. It even moves the same way in allowing full motion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 22, 2008 15:45:03 GMT
I have to second tsafa on this. The current King and Queen of Aethelmaerc are Samurai, so I have had several chances to see them in combat. Them or members of their household (all of which are also samurai). Things get a little different when they decide to wear that flag thing on their backs, but otherwise, their pretty much the same as any other fighters. Mostly they're greatswords, of course...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2009 17:12:15 GMT
Conversations such as these always interest me- because it is clear that you have some firmly ensconced on one side (I'll call them SL's or Samurai Lovers) or the other (ML, Medieval Lovers), both sides stating their cases pretty vehemently, if not also politely.
This is my personal opinion: if a medieval knight in full armor were to cross paths with a samurai in full armor, the knight would win. Why, you may ask? Because I believe this to be- I have nothing factual with which to back it up as both sets of warrior classes no longer exist.
But then, I am and never have been a katana or samurai enthusiast; there were a couple of movies made that I liked but I noticed that it never made me want to go out and BE one; the same cannot be said for anything remotely tied to knighthood. That's just me...and to each their own.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 25, 2010 5:20:49 GMT
I would still be interested in hearing anyone's (informed) views on whether the Samurai were at some point the most advanced/refined/modern military order of their time? The Mongols beat up on them. I understand their invasion of Korea didn't go well for them, either. The seem to have gained their reputation through fighting other samurai. Things that worked well enough against other samurai didn't seem to work all that well against outsiders. The mongols beat everyone up...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2010 6:28:36 GMT
lol....there's nothing personal here at all. In fact, I have a great respect for Japan both in their ancient times as well as current culture. By 'forgotten culture', I'm limiting it only to sword collecting. To expound on that, you don't have alot of people collecting Macedonian or Babylonian arms and armor. The Babylonians, as we know them today, is a dead culture and while it's true that their peoples have moved in a different direction, their Babylonian culture is dead IMHO....and it's just that. Secondly, I know that my hypothesis would never work since the external forces and influence of neighboring cultures would have surely completely changed the way that the Japanese would have conducted war even from the earliest time. I would have to disagree with you about the babylonians. They were basically assimilated into the Persian empire and you can trace the lineage of the persian deghans back to there. The Deghans were the pre-eminent heavy cavalry force of their time period and the Romans basically copied their arms and calvary techniques for use by their own cataphracts.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2010 6:33:33 GMT
The Mongols beat up on them. I understand their invasion of Korea didn't go well for them, either. The seem to have gained their reputation through fighting other samurai. Things that worked well enough against other samurai didn't seem to work all that well against outsiders. The mongols beat everyone up... Yes and no. Most of the sucession of Mongols tribes invading into the Hindu Kush areas and thence into Persia and North Africa were being pushed there by other steppe tribes. It would be more accurate to say there were several waves of steppes tribes the periodically moved into the region as they were being pushed out by other steppes tribes. You had the Kushians, then the Ye-Tai, the Huns, the Mongols and so on.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2010 7:37:20 GMT
Holy smokes, I've never even seen this thread...
|
|