Roman Legion's vs Japanese Samurai's

Discussions on other historical eras.
User avatar
Beau sabreur
Member
Posts: 159
Joined: 11 Mar 2003, 21:46
Location: The Americas

#16

Post by Beau sabreur » 22 May 2003, 04:16

The roman legions were professonal soldiers and at the hight of their power no other army on earth could defeat them. The gaul and germanic warriors were much taller and powerful than the typical roman soldiers, however the romans had disciplne, tactics and leadership. Soldiers at the front row of the legions would throw their pilia (each had more than one)which would hit their opponents shield, and remain bended, encumbering the shield bearer. They would then advance in close formation, 80% of their body or so covered with their shields. After clashing with the enemy, they would project their shields against the enemy's front row, and comence repeatedly sticking their opponents with their swords, in a pendular movement almost in an automatic way. If they were showered with arrows, they would adopt the testudo formation, creating a wall and a "roof" with their shileds, impervious to the incoming arrows.

The warriors that really shocked the romans were the parthians, with their lightning cavalry attacks, and extremely powerful bows which they shot while galloping. The parthians dealt crushing defeats to the romans, while the best the romans could do was to check their advances with uneasy truces.

Leadership, discipline and esprit de corps was the real secret weapons of victorious armies. Milciades proved it in Marathon, Alexander the Great proved it many times against Darius, and more recently, british victoria troops proved it fighting in the Crimea, Indian Mutiny, the Sudan and the Zulu wars.
Cheers!

User avatar
ckleisch
Member
Posts: 1546
Joined: 01 Mar 2003, 09:03
Location: Elizabeth City, NC USA

#17

Post by ckleisch » 22 May 2003, 08:25

I think the previous quote about British troops "proving it" against the Zulu may be a bit hasty. The British didnt fair well against the Zulu at Islandawana. Poor ammunition and supply problems. In the campaigns afterwards they overwhelmed with technical superiority ie rifles against spears. Even, so they still managed through cowardice to get the French Imperial Crown Prince killed when the British horse guards assigned to guard him abandoned him on the field to fight to the death by himself Zulu warriers that killed him.
Also, didnt a whole British Army disappear in Afghanistan? (1) survivor a doctor came home.


User avatar
Beau sabreur
Member
Posts: 159
Joined: 11 Mar 2003, 21:46
Location: The Americas

#18

Post by Beau sabreur » 22 May 2003, 19:33

ckleisch wrote:I think the previous quote about British troops "proving it" against the Zulu may be a bit hasty. The British didnt fair well against the Zulu at Islandawana. Poor ammunition and supply problems. In the campaigns afterwards they overwhelmed with technical superiority ie rifles against spears. Even, so they still managed through cowardice to get the French Imperial Crown Prince killed when the British horse guards assigned to guard him abandoned him on the field to fight to the death by himself Zulu warriers that killed him.
Also, didnt a whole British Army disappear in Afghanistan? (1) survivor a doctor came home.
If memory serves, the British lost only two wars during the 19th Century, namely in Afghanistan and in the River Plate 1806-1807. The latter is studied in Europe as a minor encounter under the Napoleonic Wars, and in Argentina/Uruguay as the “British Invasions”. It was not minor, and the British received a crushing defeat, basically at the hands of local militia. Many of the officers and at least one General surrendering their swords, would distinguish themselves during the wars against Napoleon. Having said all that, I don’t understand what your point is when you mention Afghanistan…….Is it that the British also lost sometimes? Sure they did….so?
During the battle of Isandhlwana, the ammunition was not “poor”. Due to the strict rules of delivering ammunition to the soldiers firing volleys, there was a problem of adequate supply. Also, the rifles got so hot, that many jammed and surely many “cook offs” occurred. Again, I don’t understand what your point is. The 1000+ soldiers faced thousand upon thousands of Zulu warriors who charged their lines with total recklessness, and did not care to die. I think the movie “ZULU DAWN” depicts the battle with reasonable accuracy. The British died to the last man, inflicting very heavy casualties to the enemy. It requires a lot of leadership, esprit the corps and discipline to hold steady in formation, shooting your 500/450 single shot Martini Henry as fast as you can, watching the black wave of warriors relentlessly advancing, running over their dead comrades and closing in with their assegais for the kill. If you care about this period, you will read about the reports of some of the Zulu present during this battle, telling about the unwavering “red soldiers” holding their positions and being overrun by the Zulus. That is discipline, esprit the corps and leadership. I may also mention the battle of Rorke’s Drift where, discipline, esprit the corps and leadership won the day, against all odds.

Regarding the tragic death of the French Dolphin, the British officer involved had the choice of dying with him or save himself. In Victorian times you were expected to die. How about Colin Campbell at Balaklava?Again, I fail to see the point you are trying to make.
Cheers!

PF
Member
Posts: 2123
Joined: 27 Oct 2004, 14:19
Location: USA

Re: Roman Legion's vs Japanese Samurai's

#19

Post by PF » 14 Feb 2014, 18:00

Postscript
On the Spike TV fantasy Roman vs Rajput Warrior...Roman lost!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadliest_ ... ut_Warrior
Likewise there was a episode of Genghis Khan vs Hannibal...Hannibal lost!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadliest_ ... ._Hannibal

Hannibal....contemporary of Romans ...lost
a roman vs an Indian....roman lost

User avatar
LWD
Member
Posts: 8618
Joined: 21 Sep 2005, 22:46
Location: Michigan

Re: Roman Legion's vs Japanese Samurai's

#20

Post by LWD » 14 Feb 2014, 18:48

Those shows aren't particularly good references. They tend to focus on flashy moves and ignore some of the capabilities of the participants. In any case the Romans weren't noted for being excellent warriors but excellent soldiers.

Post Reply

Return to “Other eras”