16th Century Japanese Samurai Army against European Contemporaries

Still, Japan got beaten by Korean cans...

Click to expand...

hashashini said:

This naomasa guy asked me if i could find battles were polish hussars break pike formations, I posted it. He doesn't seem to be satisfied, I think he is asking me to find head on cavalry charge. LOL!

Still, Japan got beaten by Korean cans...

Click to expand...

And the Koreans used the same 16th century technology to whop America in the rear.

General_Sherman_incident

Click to expand...

unity said:

And the Koreans used the same 16th century technology to whop America in the rear.

General Sherman incident - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Click to expand...

hashashini said:

Late 16th Century, during these times, the Samurai clans and its army were battling for Japan. It is also considered most popular era of the Samurai. It's also an era were Japan amass on of the most powerful pike and shot armies in the world.

The Samurai armies of Japan developed, independently, similar tactics as those of Europe. In some cases, predates their European counter parts.

Take note that during this period, The Japanese armies were fighting against Japanese armies. It's safe to say that their experience on fighting war outside their realm is not on par against war ridden European armies. The only time they fought outside Japan was against the Koreans and Chinese... They've lost.

I want to discuss how would a Japanese Samurai army during this period would fare against its European Contemporaries which I think had far more superior army that those of Koreans and Chinese.

Do you think a Samurai army would fare well against its European Contemporaries? ie: Spanish Empire, Holy Roman Empire, Ottoman Empire etc.

Click to expand...

hashashini said:

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.

Click to expand...

The Dutch, famous in Europe for their weapons, tactics, and logistics, found themselves hopelessly outclassed by the Chinese.

Click to expand...

The Dutch were no laggards. Dutch cannons and handguns were famous throughout Europe, and the Dutch arms industry was a major part of its booming early-capitalist economy. Yet the guns aimed against them by their Chinese foes were strikingly effective, and the Chinese gunners were so fast and so accurate that, as one Dutch commander wrote in chagrin, “they put our own men to shame.”

Click to expand...

Yet an even greater Chinese advantage in this Sino-Dutch War was in the area of leadership. The Dutch were known throughout Europe as the inventors of modern military drill, and, indeed, Dutch innovations revolutionized warfare in Europe. Dutch drilling regimes — in which musketmen were trained to march in lockstep, carry out intricate maneuvers, and act as one coordinated unit — spread throughout the West, prompting military historians to argue that Europeans possessed a special “Western Way of War,” making them the most effective fighting troops in the world.

But, in a striking coincidence of world history, at the same time as Europeans were developing their new drilling regimens, China was undergoing a military revolution of its own. Perhaps one should instead say “revival” of its own, because ancient Chinese armies were incredibly well drilled and disciplined. Still, the revival of the 1500s and 1600s went well beyond ancient models, and Chinese commanders experimented with training regimens that sound strikingly modern – the simulation of combat stress, the assumption of prone positions for firefights (Westerners were trained to stand up, exposing their bodies to more bullets), advanced strength and endurance training regimens.

Click to expand...

pugsville said:

is this the battle?

Siege of Fort Zeelandia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

25,000 v 2,000 does not make any sort of case of the superiority of combat doctrines and training.

The practice of standing in formation was not a case of "modern" or "primitive" the doctrine of fighting in close formation was a matter of effectiveness. Formed bodies are capable of withstanding cavalry, skirmish lines are not. Formed bodies were effective for a variety of reasons. In Europe skirmish lines became effective withe Napoleonic period but only for a small part of the forces, formed bodies were still often more effective, and the interplay of skirmish lines and formed bodies was important.

Dutch colonial forces were not that highly regarded. There were not highly drilled regular forces. I don't know anything about the Ming chances military at the time.

Click to expand...

YouLoveMeYouKnowIt said:

This is from The West?s First War with China | The Diplomat regarding the Ming and the Dutch at Zeelandia, written by the author of Andrade, T.: Lost Colony: The Untold Story of China?s First Great Victory over the West. (eBook and Paperback)

Conclusion:

1) One of the best in Europe hopelessly outclassed by the Ming
2) Ming gunners put one of the best in Europe to shame
3) Ming training regimes, discipline, and drills were strikingly modern

Hit me with some of that superior European and Japanese quality, both of which lost against the Ming.

Tamao
Tamao 2
Ningbo
Zeelandia

Click to expand...