16th Century Japanese Samurai Army against European Contemporaries

purakjelia · Oct 3, 2013

hashashini said:
The pictures of weapons you posted looks low quality to me during that time compared to European weapons. Even when restored today, European weapons looks much better. Quality wise, European weapons > Chinese weapons. You could tell based on their age, They were made like the same time, but weapons from Europe today still looks fresher than those you posted.

I can sense the blatant eurocentrism in your posts.

Seriously, do you really believe that those shiny lorica segmentata and those well-polished medieval armors that you see on TV are real artifacts? No, those are reconstructed replicas.

On the other hand, the pictures that I posted were real Ming weapons buried underground for several hundred years until they were dug up by archaeologists recently.

If you bury European weapons underground for hundreds of years, I'm sure they would also look dusty and rusty.

purakjelia · Oct 3, 2013

Anyways, my pictures have already proved my point. Ming armies used a variety of firearms.

Before the Industrial Revolution, European armies did not really have an advantage over East Asian armies.

Kampfringen · Oct 3, 2013

purakjelia said:
Anyways, my pictures have already proved my point. Ming armies used a variety of firearms.

Before the Industrial Revolution, European armies did not really have an advantage over East Asian armies.

This whole thread speculative banter but I did want to point out that the Europeans had all the same gadgets and guns, grenades and gizmos and the like as the Chinese armies. Just look and Bellifortis and Talhoffer's house book.

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bellifortis]Bellifortis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

http://www.thearma.org/pdf/Fight-Earnestly.pdf

And the Chinese had gunpowder for hundreds of years before the Europeans, and the Europeans changed the world within about 200 years of getting gunpowder.

unity · Oct 3, 2013

hashashini said:
A lost is still a lost. It just shows their lack of experience fighting outside their country. Yes they had swept up the Korean peninsula but they failed on one important aspect of war, Logistics. It shows that in a war of attrition, Japanese armies during that time could not sustain it. War alone is not won based on how many kills you get in a battlefield.

Ming china has rarely been in wars during this period, their economy was on decline and I don't think that a regular Chinese foot soldier is as well trained as an Ashigaru, or European soldiers. What they have is superiority in numbers and numbers doesn't mean you win wars automatically. Quality alone, Japanese armies and European armies has advantage over Chinese and Korean armies and I don't think Chinese made weapons quality wise were as good as European weapons.

hashashini said:
The pictures of weapons you posted looks low quality to me during that time compared to European weapons. Even when restored today, European weapons looks much better. Quality wise, European weapons > Chinese weapons. You could tell based on their age, They were made like the same time, but weapons from Europe today still looks fresher than those you posted.

The superiority and inferiority if weapons mattered little. The Ming Chinese used inferior muzzle loading cannon to defeat the Portuguese, captured Portuguese ships and sailors and reverse engineer the Portuguese breech loading cannon which were called "Folanji" by the Chinese. The Portuguese were defeated twice at Tamao in 1521 and 1522 and their cannons passed into Chinese hands.

In the 1620s, the Ming also defeated the Dutch when the Dutch tried to raid Chinese cities in Fujian and Dutch sailors were captured or driven away. China then took the war to the Pescadores and forced the Dutch to relocate their fort to Taiwan and give up the Pescadores.

Chinese forces then laid siege to Fort Zeelandia in 1662 and defeated the Dutch and made them withdraw from Taiwan.

Sources are here.

http://historum.com/asian-history/5...uguese-naval-battle-tamao-1521-1522-a-12.html

hashashini · Oct 3, 2013

unity said:
The superiority and inferiority if weapons mattered little. The Ming Chinese used inferior muzzle loading cannon to defeat the Portuguese, captured Portuguese ships and sailors and reverse engineer the Portuguese breech loading cannon which were called "Folanji" by the Chinese. The Portuguese were defeated twice at Tamao in 1521 and 1522 and their cannons passed into Chinese hands.

Of course it mattered a little since the battles you quoted, as I had further read was there were only 6 Caravel ships against what? swarms of Chinese ships... of course who do you think would have won? The Portuguese are far from their territories. And take note, Caravel Ships.

Let's scrap that battle and put in same number of Portuguese ships, this time their warships against the Chinese. Do you think those Chinese would coupe up with technologically superior Portuguese ships? I don't think so.

hashashini · Oct 3, 2013

purakjelia said:
I'm just too annoyed to see that people blindly assume that ancient Chinese armies were a bunch of ragtag peasants who fought without armor.

I didn't say that the Chinese were a bunch of peasants who fought without armor. I said that their troop quality was inferior to those of Japan and Europe.

Experience wise the Japanese and the Europeans were far more experienced in wars / battles than their Chinese Contemporaries who has rarely been in wars / battles during those period.

Quite the opposite to what you might assume, the Chinese were the ones who first invented gunpowder during the 10th century AD.

By the time of the Ming Dynasty in the 16th century, the Chinese had already developed a whole array of gunpowder-based weapons including handguns, fire lances, flamethrowers, rocket arrows, bombs, grenades, landmines, naval mines, cannons, etc.

Yes they invented gunpowder, but Europeans changed the face warfare using gunpowder.

purakjelia · Oct 3, 2013

hashashini said:
I didn't say that the Chinese were a bunch of peasants who fought without armor. I said that their troop quality was inferior to those of Japan and Europe.

Experience wise the Japanese and the Europeans were far more experienced in wars / battles than their Chinese Contemporaries who has rarely been in wars / battles during those period.

Yes they invented gunpowder, but Europeans changed the face warfare using gunpowder.

Do you really believe that every single European or Japanese foot soldier at that time had the same equipment as knights or samurais?

As far as I know, full plate armor was only used by rich European warlords, while the ordinary European foot soldiers had cotton tunics or brigandine armors, similar to what the Ming foot soldier had.

Ordinary Japanese ashigaru foot soldiers only had a hat and a basic set of lamellar armor made of bamboo or leather.

During the late 16th century the Ming Chinese were also fighting multiple opponents: they still had to deal with their old enemies the Mongols on the northern frontier, and they also had to face the Wokou pirates on the southeastern coast of China.

Experience wise the Ming Chinese had some battle-hardened generals, such as Qi Jiguang and Yu Dayou. Qi Jiguang devised a way to counter Mongol cavalry by mounting rocket launchers, mortars and cannons on war wagons and he made those war wagons into mobile forts to provide cover for his foot soldiers. Qi had also successfully repelled the Wokou pirates from southern China using his well-trained and well-disciplined Yuan Yang battle squads.

HackneyedScribe · Oct 3, 2013

Orinary Japanese ashigaru foot soldiers only had a hat and a basic set of lamellar armor made of bamboo or leather.

Ashigaru wore metal armor during the relevant time period of this thread.

purakjelia · Oct 3, 2013

Qi Jiguang's Yuan Yang battle squad

In the front, there are two foot soldiers armed with a sabre and a rattan shield.

There is a bannerman in the centre, and two spearmen on his sides wielding the Lang Sien bamboo spear (a special type of spear attached with sharp bamboo branches)

Then there are four pikemen, followed by two foot soldiers each armed with a trident.

I'm not sure who is the last man. It seems that he is holding a long staff.

hashashini · Oct 3, 2013

purakjelia said:
Do you really believe that every single European or Japanese foot soldier at that time had the same equipment as knights or samurais?

By quality, I'm not referring to equipment alone. Training, Discipline, Experience and how well they were drilled are factors too in which case I think Japanese and Europeans has an advantage.

As far as I know, full plate armor was only used by rich European warlords, while the ordinary European foot soldiers had cotton tunics or brigandine armors, similar to what the Ming foot soldier had.

Full plate armor were becoming obsolete during this period because guns were slowly changing how war was fought. A full plate armor was too costly to produce in masses and It can't stop a bullet so why waste a lot of funds for that.

Also this is what an ordinary European soldier would look like during the said period.

Ordinary Japanese ashigaru foot soldiers only had a hat and a basic set of lamellar armor made of bamboo or leather.

If you mean this?

then it's fine... I would not say that It could stop a bullet but it's fine to keep yourself protected.

During the late 16th century the Ming Chinese were also fighting multiple opponents: they still had to deal with their old enemies the Mongols on the northern frontier, and they also had to face the Wokou pirates on the southeastern coast of China.

The mongols were not as good of a force as they were during their peak. And I don't think the Mongols were relevant during 16th century. The wokou pirates... well they're pirates...

Meanwhile on the war ridden Europe, Constant wars were happening on Large scales, European countries had to deal against another European countries, against the Ottomans and so on and so fort. The competition was much better.

If you compare wars in Europe and Middle East against wars fought by China during this timeframe, It's like comparing NBA to D League.

purakjelia · Oct 3, 2013

hashashini said:
By quality, I'm not referring to equipment alone. Training, Discipline, Experience and how well they were drilled are factors too in which case I think Japanese and Europeans has an advantage.

Full plate armor were becoming obsolete during this period because guns were slowly changing how war was fought. A full plate armor was too costly to produce in masses and It can't stop a bullet so why waste a lot of funds for that.

Also this is what an ordinary European soldier would look like during the said period.

If you mean this?

then it's fine... I would not say that It could stop a bullet but it's fine to keep yourself protected.

The mongols were not as good of a force as they were during their peak. And I don't think the Mongols were relevant during 16th century. The wokou pirates... well they're pirates...

Meanwhile on the war ridden Europe, Constant wars were happening on Large scales, European countries had to deal against another European countries, against the Ottomans and so on and so fort. The competition was much better.

If you compare wars in Europe and Middle East against wars fought by China during this timeframe, It's like comparing NBA to D League.

I really don't understand what's the point of your comparison.

Ming Chinese armies were on par with any other army around the world at that time, at least in terms of armor and equipment.

Pikes and spears, we had those things, and we probably had more of those polearms than the west.

Cannons and mortars, we also had those artilleries.

Grenades, bombs, landmines, naval mines, war wagons, rocket launchers, we had all of them.

Ming soldiers had brigandine armors, similar to what the ordinary European foot soldiers had at that time.

As I mentioned earlier, it was only after the Industrial Revolution that the European armies gained a major advantage over the rest of the world. Before that revolution the European armies did not really have any significant advantages over East Asian armies.

Edgewaters · Oct 3, 2013

I think they'd do alright in a straight up land battle, but in a war they're doomed. It's just one invention they don't have, the multiple gun decks on the European ships ... and they live in an archipelago. No good, no good at all, to fight a war in an archipelago if your naval forces are badly outgunned.

hashashini · Oct 3, 2013

purakjelia said:
I really don't understand what's the point of your comparison.

Ming Chinese armies were on par with any other army around the world at that time, at least in terms of armor and equipment.

Pikes and spears, we had those things, and we probably had more of those polearms than the west.

Cannons and mortars, we also had those artilleries.

Grenades, bombs, landmines, naval mines, war wagons, rocket launchers, we had all of them.

Ming soldiers had brigandine armors, similar to what the ordinary European foot soldiers had at that time.

As I mentioned earlier, it was only after the Industrial Revolution that the European armies gained a major advantage over the rest of the world. Before that revolution the European armies did not really have significant advantages over East Asian armies.

As I said earlier, yes they had those weapons too, they are on par weapon wise, but quality wise, European made Guns and Cannons were of a better quality than those used by Ming China. Also if you consider the type of wars fought, experience alone, a regular European Soldier and Japanese soldier were far more experienced than a regular Chinese Soldier.

If we put it together, based on training, discipline and experience European Soldiers > Chinese Soldiers. The advantage Ming China has, was their superiority in numbers.

Nevertheless, I would not dare to pick Chinese soldiers over European, Ottoman or Japanese soldiers to fight battles for me during the said time frame.

hashashini · Oct 3, 2013

Edgewaters said:
I think they'd do alright in a straight up land battle, but in a war they're doomed. It's just one invention they don't have, the multiple gun decks on the European ships ... and they live in an archipelago. No good, no good at all, to fight a war in an archipelago if your naval forces are badly outgunned.

Definitely agree with this!

tornada · Oct 3, 2013

hashashini said:
As I said earlier, yes they had those weapons too, they are on par weapon wise, but quality wise, European made Guns and Cannons were of a better quality than those used by Ming China. Also if you consider the type of wars fought, experience alone, a regular European Soldier and Japanese soldier were far more experienced than a regular Chinese Soldier.

If we put it together, based on training, discipline and experience European Soldiers > Chinese Soldiers. The advantage Ming China has, was their superiority in numbers.

Nevertheless, I would not dare to pick Chinese soldiers over European, Ottoman or Japanese soldiers to fight battles for me during the said time frame.

sources? If you assert that European weapons across the board were superior to Ming weapons could you please give a source for it? Not saying i disagree with you, just that since the point is being contested, you could provide backup for your assertion

Naomasa298 · Oct 3, 2013

Edgewaters said:
I think they'd do alright in a straight up land battle, but in a war they're doomed. It's just one invention they don't have, the multiple gun decks on the European ships ... and they live in an archipelago. No good, no good at all, to fight a war in an archipelago if your naval forces are badly outgunned.

Never mind an archipelago, they didn't manage terribly well in littoral battles in Korea. Japanese sea tactics simply weren't advanced enough - they hadn't developed much beyond close-and-board.

hashashini · Oct 3, 2013

tornada said:
sources? If you assert that European weapons across the board were superior to Ming weapons could you please give a source for it? Not saying i disagree with you, just that since the point is being contested, you could provide backup for your assertion

Let me give you a scenario,

Country A has been fighting constant wars for over a century against great competition. Country B has rarely been at wars and was fighting lesser competition.

Which country do you think would produce better quality of troops, generals, weapons? Country A or B?

Naomasa298 · Oct 3, 2013

hashashini said:
Let me give you a scenario,

Country A has been fighting constant wars for over a century against great competition. Country B has rarely been at wars and was fighting lesser competition.

Which country do you think would produce better quality of troops, generals, weapons? Country A or B?

That's your opinion. While I'm not saying you're wrong on that basis, you'll need to produce some substantive evidence to back up your assertion, not just make a general statement. That's how things work on Historum.

Ajathashatru · Oct 4, 2013

tornada said:
The Samurai were kinda like the Japanese Kshatriya class. They were a warrior class who largely comprised of the Nobility and aristocracy of Japanese society. They (and ninjas) are certainly not mythical.

Samurai - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For Ninjas -
Ninja - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

They certainly have exaggerated stories and depictions in both history and modern times, but that's like the exaggerated depictions of the "chivalrous" knights or the near superhuman depictions of American special forces in television and movies

Thnx.. I am getting more and more interested in Japanese history...

Naomasa298 · Oct 4, 2013

tornada said:
For Ninjas -
Ninja - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

By the way - ninjas are largely mythical.

Search

Search

16th Century Japanese Samurai Army against European Contemporaries

purakjelia

purakjelia

Kampfringen

unity

hashashini

hashashini

purakjelia

HackneyedScribe

purakjelia

hashashini

purakjelia

Edgewaters

hashashini

hashashini

tornada

Naomasa298

hashashini

Naomasa298

Ajathashatru

Naomasa298

More History Discussions

Recent History Discussions

Trending History Discussions