Rome vs Japan

[Magnus]

Okay I'm gonna be a thread necromancer

Ok, you asked for it....

1 The Romans were trained in all sorts of martial arts

The concept of martial arts post-dates the Roman era. We know they were trained in the weapons and tactics in use at the time. See Roman Warfare by Adrian Goldsworthy, pages 122-124. This was a military institution, not a martial one.

2 Roman blades are made high quality steel

Hunh? The VAST majority of roman swords were of below average to poor quality steel. Some were well made, especially the ones from Spain.

Relevant threads: http://www.romanarmy.com/rat/viewtopic. ... ht=#132848

http://www.romanarmy.com/rat/viewtopic. ... ight=steel

Also, Sim's book "Iron for the Eagles" will give you an in-depth of roman forging in Britain.

3 Spathas were superior to the katana

In what way? Construction? Well you're dead wrong on that one...on average the katana benefits from a much better forging process. Also, the curvature of the katana makes it a MUCH better cavalry weapon than the straight bladed Spatha. If you're talking battle effectiveness, I'd love to see some statistics. Care to quote a source?

Read "The Craft of the Japanese Sword" by Leon and Hiroko Kapp, and Yoshindo Yoshihara. One of the best books on how japanese swords are made.

4 The katana wasn't used much and didn't attain its cult like status until the 1600's and it will break just as easily as a medieval blade and it's rather fragile

Again, dead wrong. Early Heian period all the way up to the Kamakura Shogunate (at the start of the Mongol wars) saw a LOT of single combat between samurai using....the tachi which of course pre-dated the katana. The Mongol wars actually precipitated the need to build shorter, thicker blades (due to their armour). And thus the katana was born. The katana was used extensively as a side arm from this point right up until the end of the Sengoku Jidai. From this point at the start of the Tokugawa shogunate to the Meiji restoration it was used more so as a primary weapon, but no longer on the field of battle.

For more reading, see "Samurai, The weapons and spirit of the Japanese Warrior" by Clive Sinclair, and "Japanese swordsmanship" by Don Drager.

5 The No-Dachi is a rather crude weapon and was used by peasants

Where did you read this? The no-dachi was VERY difficult to forge because of the longer blade length making yaki-ire very dangerous. This is where the blade is quenched in water. Many No-dachi were given to temples as offerings. Their main use during the period of the waring states was as a shock weapon used by SAMURAI (not peasents) to create gaps and holes in the enemy lines due to their longer blade length.
Peasants were often armed with yari (spears) or spears made simply of bamboo. In some cases peasants were armed with teppo (rifles) because of the samurai's negative viewpoint of firearms being cowardly and beneath them.


6 The samurai (Pre 1600's) would have used a tachi

Again, wrong. You need to read a history book on katana to actually figure out when the katana evolved from the tachi. The tachi fell out of favor from the time of the Mongol wars which dates to 1274 and 1281. From that period onwards the katana was used. You're only off by 300 years...

8 The legionaries were professional soldiers, the samurai was a warrior and not all samurai were combatants

You're running under the presumption (and incorrectly so) that all legionary's were battle tested. Most soldiers did not see combat at all, and were subject to peace time trends. As were the samurai, however during times of war the Samurai trained as much as the legionarys were. In fact, martial training in the bushido arts began at a much earlier age than that of Roman Legionarys. This age was anywhere from 6-10.

See "The Sword of No-Sword, Life of the Master Warrior Tesshu" by John Stevens.

10 The romans had factories to mass produce gear

So did the japanese...read any of the above mentioned books.

12 Bushido and all the ki stuff... that only took off during the meiji period when samurai were little more than butterflies

Not only is this extremely disrespectful it rather demonstrates what level of maturity you're at. So this will be an official Moderator's warning, keep the cultural insults off of RAT.

To answer this silly statement, principles of bushido were actually followed from the begining of the samurai class in the 8th century. It was put down on paper in the 1600's by a few authors. For some excellent reading, I would recommend "Code of the Samurai, A Modern Translation of the Bushido Shoshinsu of Taira Shigesuke".

13 The fights between portugese sailors and samurai the only time a sailor lost was when he was so drunk he barely stand up

Could you be anymore racially biased? Care to give some evidence to this only victory?

14 The romans had sniper/sharpshooter units and organized intelligence
agencies, and the ninja came to be around the 1400's I'd like to see a ninja fight a praetorian, a Speculatore, an Arcanius, an Agens In Rusbes, a Praevenatore, A frumentarius...

This statement ranks in the top 3 of the worst ones you made. The Japanese had FIREARMS and cannons. And "ninja" were simply samurai special forces...if they were employed against an enemy unit they had more ways to disrupt enemy logistics, perform espionage, assasinate, and gather intelligence than anything recorded in Roman times. Were a shinobi to engage in combat, they were trained the same arts and tactics as regular samurai.

15 The romans also hated to retreat and they would fight to the death if need be

You've read absolutely ZERO on Samurai, haven't you? Oh, and video games don't count.

16 The romans would also be bigger than the samurai

Size means nothing. I bet you underestimate Yoda too.

17 The gladius is horrific cutting tool

Cant' argue with that, but so is the Katana, Tachi, No-dachi, Nagamaki, Naginata and Tanto. In fact, Katana were often used in test cutting called tameshigiri sometimes on the corpses of criminals. The more intricate the cut (some went from shoulder, diagonally across and came out the lower ribs) the more prestige was given to a smith's blades.

OT: The europeans had their own martial arts that were I daresay more brutal and effective than japanese martial arts, plate armor wasn't super heavy and clumsy, swords didn't weigh forty pounds[/quote]

WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!!!! Compare Fiore's manuals to ANY Japanese sword art and you'll see ALL the principles are EXACTLY the same. I currently hold a Shodan (1st degree black) rank in Muso Jikiden Eishen Ryu Iaido, as well as currently studying Katori Shinto Ryu Kenjutsu. Both of these arts are over 400 years old. Katori is actually structured around armoured combat and many of it is exactly the same as what is practiced in AEMMA (Academy of European Medieval Martial Arts) which is done in armour.

I mean what else can I say? You really have no idea what you're talking about, because you haven't even begun to try and learn about the other side of things here. Your ignorance costs you in presentation because much of what you write bordelines on bigotry.

Maybe you should be a thread "researcher" instead of a thread necromancer. That way you won't come off sounding like all your research comes from hollywood or worse.