08-06-2007, 11:57 PM
(hey everyone.. longtime no see.. lol)
one thing I have to say, Japanese warfare was 1 on 1 until the Mongol Invasions, and even then they struggled to get it right. so in the Roman days, with a full legion (since Legionaires NEVER fought alone) Rome would stomp Japan, due to Rome's expertice in massed conflict (talking about the Roman days here, early ADs)
then there's the distance from the Roman Empire to Japan, you think all those peoples would willingly let either armed force walk through their lands?
then the other thing was, the first hint of a Samurai was in 646 AD (I believe) so in the Roman days (talking about pre-dark ages) Rome would win. my question is: did Japan even have an army in the early ADs? before 646, if so obviously it was still 1 on 1 warfare
one thing I have to say, Japanese warfare was 1 on 1 until the Mongol Invasions, and even then they struggled to get it right. so in the Roman days, with a full legion (since Legionaires NEVER fought alone) Rome would stomp Japan, due to Rome's expertice in massed conflict (talking about the Roman days here, early ADs)
then there's the distance from the Roman Empire to Japan, you think all those peoples would willingly let either armed force walk through their lands?
then the other thing was, the first hint of a Samurai was in 646 AD (I believe) so in the Roman days (talking about pre-dark ages) Rome would win. my question is: did Japan even have an army in the early ADs? before 646, if so obviously it was still 1 on 1 warfare
Mike