Ancient Warfare astounds me

[slateman]

I've always thought the Spartans were somewhat overrated. The Thermopylae Pass is impressive, but Epiminandos (sp?) and his Thebes pretty much worked them.

The most impressive battle to me has always been Hannible at the Battle of Canne. There his Carthiginian army killed 70,000 Roman soldiers using the tactic that would now be called double envelopment. Too bad he didn't have to much of a mind for strategic campaigns or siege warfare

[Automaggot68]

In your opinion, who do you think would have won a battle? Samurai or Roman soldiers? I know the number of Romans might have been two to one or more, but logically speaking, if the environment was in the favor of the Samurai...

The Samurai abided by a code of rules and ethics, the Roman soldiers did not.

Would I pit fine Japanese steel against Roman steel in a one on one? Hell Yes.
Who'd win? The style of combat on either side are so damn different it'd be hard to tell.

The Samurai excersised mercy to a certain extent, where as the romans would fight dirty--making it an interesting fight

If they both had to fight with a system of rules, then the samurai would excell, as the Roman would be out of his enviornment, whereas if it were all go, no holds barred fight dirty, The Roman I think would excell.

Then you get into other areas, which has more combat experience?

If it was Moyimoto Musashi (a man who never lost a dual) vs Julius Casar, or Alexander the Great, I think Musashi would oninate Caesar, but have a little trouble with Alexander, as both of the latter were Generals, and I'm sure spent less time fighting then their underlings did.

blargh.

[Hasty8]

I was thinking about this too. How can you know good guy from bad army when you are engaged in close combat (sword, axe, etc.) warfare on an open field with 2,000 other guys? Especially before they started using uniforms? Even with uniforms it would be hard to tell who is who when everyone is covered in blood. I would be hacking away at anybody that stepped near me in fear that they were out to to kill me.

And how the heck are you supposed to secure the borders of a country back then? I mean, they didn't have radar and the countries weren't as populated as they are now, so it would be quite possible for a 2,000 man army to sneak into the heart of a country almost undetected.

And one thing that still gets to me is how stupid the Revolutionary/Civil war commanders were. They still used the line formations! Well, not all the time, but still, they should have been a little smarter than that.

Actually, it was the British who used the reginmental firing lines during the Revolutionary war. For our part we did a lot of brief skirmishes and then faded away. The British were the army to beat in the 1770's. They had the size and strategy to a science.

What's interesting to not was that during the Civil war the North fought primarily like the British and the South used bait raids.

As for past battlefield commands often you used flags and specific banners to denote squad, regiment and such. IMHO none better explefied this than the Japanese samurai.

Daimyo House Codes From the Rokkaku-shi Shikimoku circa 1567

One of the things that allowed leaders of ancient times to so effectively lead IMHO, was the absolute loyalty their troops often showed them.


Samurai Archives

A pretty decnt site to start learning about some of the great samurai.

[Automaggot68]

Ihis is my awesome post.

Good job on that post, dude.

[Hasty8]

The Samurai abided by a code of rules and ethics, the Roman soldiers did not.

Would I pit fine Japanese steel against Roman steel in a one on one? Hell Yes.
Who'd win? The style of combat on either side are so damn different it'd be hard to tell.

The Samurai excersised mercy to a certain extent, where as the romans would fight dirty--making it an interesting fight

If they both had to fight with a system of rules, then the samurai would excell, as the Roman would be out of his enviornment, whereas if it were all go, no holds barred fight dirty, The Roman I think would excell.

Then you get into other areas, which has more combat experience?

If it was Moyimoto Musashi (a man who never lost a dual) vs Julius Casar, or Alexander the Great, I think Musashi would oninate Caesar, but have a little trouble with Alexander, as both of the latter were Generals, and I'm sure spent less time fighting then their underlings did.

blargh.

Personally, one on one there would be no contest. The Samurai would destroy a roman soldier, even the fables Pratorians. Why? Becuase Bushido was more then just a philosophy system. It was also a martial art. [edit] Let me correct myself. Bushido was NOT a martial art in itself. It was the intense philosophical beliefs within Bushido that required samurai to master their martial duties. [/edit]

The Romans had no real sword style, at least, not to the level that the Samurai had.

Also, if you look at the multitude of Roman conquests they were not true "land battles" as they were extended sieges and then the Romans easil defending the dying and starving defenders. The Romans kicked but at siege making. It was their stock in trade.

With that I'll say that if the Romans were to lay siege to a Samurai village they might win but in a foot battle I think they would have gotten whooped.

[Automaggot68]

Personally, one on one there would be no contest. The Samurai would destroy a roman soldier, even the fables Pratorians. Why? Becuase Bushido was more then just a philosophy system. It was also a martial art.

The Romans had no real sword style, at least, not to the level that the Samurai had.

Also, if you look at the multitude of Roman conquests they were not true "land battles" as they were extended sieges and then the Romans easil defending the dying and starving defenders. The Romans kicked but at siege making. It was their stock in trade.

With that I'll say that if the Romans were to lay siege to a Samurai village they might win but in a foot battle I think they would have gotten whooped.

My thoughts exactly.
The samurai made sword fighting into an art.
I'd go further into this, but damn I am sick today and I prefer reading yours anyway.
Again, good post.

[Lohman446]

Depends, you might get the "exceptional" Roman soldier or gladiator who would stand a chance, but the Roman system was strong because of the numbers and coherence of numbers... it was not based on any individual.

[Automaggot68]

Depends, you might get the "exceptional" Roman soldier or gladiator who would stand a chance, but the Roman system was strong because of the numbers and coherence of numbers... it was not based on any individual.

*The only one who'd stand a chance*, would be a Praetorian, and even then, they'd be elsewhere like say....
.....guarding the emperor?



* Denotes the Fact that even then, It wouldn't be anything when compared to the Samurai.

[MagmanLee]

Check out Rome: Total War, it's a great game that simulates ancient warfare bring in aspects such as formations, morale, weapons, and unit experience. The History channel even uses the RTW engine to simulate ancient battles.

[Jeffy-CanCon]

There are some excellent posts in this thread. Though personally I think that the 1770s and 1860s hardly counts as "ancient".

...

And how the heck are you supposed to secure the borders of a country back then? I mean, they didn't have radar and the countries weren't as populated as they are now, so it would be quite possible for a 2,000 man army to sneak into the heart of a country almost undetected.

And one thing that still gets to me is how stupid the Revolutionary/Civil war commanders were. They still used the line formations! Well, not all the time, but still, they should have been a little smarter than that.

It was impossible to really secure the borders the way we do it today. That remained true up to the 20th C, I think. The best you could do was a ring of forts or castles from which you would get warning, and could respond quickly to small enemy forces. Even still, it was not possible to "sneak" in with an army. Marching troops move quite slowly, they make a lot of noise, and raise a lot of dust. They also tended to live off the land, and widespread foraging parties created refugees heading in many directions.

Even today, armies tend to prepare to fight the last war, regardless of changes in technology. US Civil War commanders were using offensive tactics that had worked in 1815 and 1848, even though the advent of the rifled musket and the repeating rifle made the results quite bloody. The same thing happened again in WW1.

;-)
also, many troops from these times were NOT trained from birth, they were conscripts (draftees with less training and poor equipment) who only fought because their own commanders would kill them if they didn't. Army's would ride into town, kidnap all the able-bodied men, and put them to work. That was part of what made the English Longbow such a feared weapon, because it made these conscripts a force to be feared with little training relative to other weapons.

...

English longbowmen trained from childhood. The weapon was fearsome not because of it's ease of use, but because of it's range, rate of fire and penetrating power. The size and draw-strength of the bow made it difficult to hold and aim, so long years of practice were required to use it effectively (the archers skeletons are easily identifiable by their shoulder-joints, which never set the way they do in normal adults). No other European power could field a similar force bacause they didn't trust their peasants to keep weapons at home, the way an Engish freeman could. (note: probable background philospohy of the US 2nd Amendment)

[Rooster]

"n your opinion, who do you think would have won a battle? Samurai or Roman soldiers? I know the number of Romans might have been two to one or more, but logically speaking, if the environment was in the favor of the Samurai... "

Romans were not exceptionally good soldiers. Many of the Greek city nations had far superior soldiers. They did not always out number their foes. Their tactics are not drastically different from the Greek Phalanx. What made the Roman army so invinclable for so long was that they were experts in seige-craft and the building of fortifications. All Roman soldiers were as much stone mason/carpenter/builder/engineer as they were fighters. They could divert rivers to their needs, they built cities within their fortifications, and they had the seige-craft could level enemies.

A samurai would defeat any single Roman soldier. If the Romans decided to conquer Japan, they would have conquered it with little opposition.

[Rooster]

"English longbowmen trained from childhood. The weapon was fearsome not because of it's ease of use, but because of it's range, rate of fire and penetrating power. The size and draw-strength of the bow made it difficult to hold and aim, so long years of practice were required to use it effectively (the archers skeletons are easily identifiable by their shoulder-joints, which never set the way they do in normal adults). No other European power could field a similar force bacause they didn't trust their peasants to keep weapons at home, the way an Engish freeman could. (note: probable background philospohy of the US 2nd Amendment)"

A typical longbow has a 100 pound draw weight. It is impossible to fully draw and hold without training. (A typical hunting bow is around 50).

[brianlojeck]

I stand corrected re: british archers.