16th Century Japanese Samurai Army against European Contemporaries

purakjelia · Aug 5, 2014

Naima said:
this seems a pretty wrong statement can you back itup with sources?
basing on what assumption ? hundreds of castles and no place were to apply their open field tactics for open battles , not counting that they woudl have to stop every few kms to take a fortress instead than just one big city to control a whole region . The territory of Western Europe had more forests and castles than the Mongols were accustomed, and there were opportunities for the European heavy cavalry to counter-attack . Mongols had only advantage in the open plains of east but as they approached west they had no chance , thats why they stopped.

A similar tactic was used by the southern Song Dynasty when they faced the Mongols. They built a series of fortresses on the hills of southwest China to stop the advancing Mongols. It did take a while for the Mongols to get accustomed to this tactic. In particular, the Mongol leader Mongke injured and died during a siege at a southern Chinese fortified town called the Fishing Town. Nowadays the remains of the Fishing Town fortress still exists and it has become a popular historical site and tourist attraction.

But ultimately, the Mongols conquered the Song in 1279, after they obtained the counterweight trebuchet from the Persians and the navy from the surrendered Chinese.

Naima · Aug 5, 2014

purakjelia said:
The Khwarazm Empire was actually a rising power in Persia in the early 1200's.

Nah , the Khwarazm is a dinasty, they were vassals under Seljuqs and KaraKhitan and later endependant for a brief period till the arrival of the Mongols they expanded fast into persia taking advantage of the Seljuk civil war , but were never that strong . they mostly ruled for a very brief period as endependant 1194 to 1220 when mongol wars started .

Naima · Aug 5, 2014

purakjelia said:
A similar tactic was used by the southern Song Dynasty when they faced the Mongols. They built a series of fortresses on the hills of southwest China to stop the advancing Mongols. It did take a while for the Mongols to get accustomed to this tactic. In particular, the Mongol leader Mongke injured and died during a siege at a southern Chinese fortified town called the Fishing Town. Nowadays the remains of the Fishing Town fortress still exists and it has become a popular historical site and tourist attraction.

But ultimately, the Mongols conquered the Song in 1279, after they obtained the counterweight trebuchet from the Persians and the navy from the surrendered Chinese.

How many castles are in China from the Song period?

those are the ones in europe , some are from after the proper age , and most destroyed are not listed .[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_castles_in_Europe"]List of castles in Europe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

but gives an idea of the fortresses density of Europe , the whole western europe was an almoust continuous fortress .

Naima · Aug 5, 2014

zincwarrior said:
Well its a fair question, as samurai had longarms too and frequently fought on horseback. I'd explore that and then go to a confrontation on foot.

Lol I suppose you meant polearms?
not sure if it could face a charge of a lance though , his armor was not suited for this kind of jousting , while the european ones were .

purakjelia · Aug 5, 2014

Naima said:
How many castles are in China from the Song period?

Not castles, but fortified towns.

More than 80 of such towns were built in southwest China, and Fishing Town was just one of them.

Naima · Aug 5, 2014

purakjelia said:
Not castles, but fortified towns.

At least a dozen of such towns were built in southwest China, and Fishing Town was just one of them.

Well yes , but In europe you have also fortified towns, cities, etc ... mostly Castles every few kms ... almoust everywhere ... eastern europe was more backward, less fortified and much more openfield .
Then Mongols on Alps would have not many chances really .

zincwarrior · Aug 5, 2014

purakjelia said:
Not castles, but fortified towns.

At least a dozen of such towns were built in southwest China, and Fishing Town was just one of them.

I'd proffer most towns in Europe were "fortified" at the time. Those Eruopeans really liked their walls.

purakjelia · Aug 5, 2014

Naima said:
Well yes , but In europe you have also fortified towns, cities, etc ... mostly Castles every few kms ... almoust everywhere ... eastern europe was more backward, less fortified and much more openfield .
Then Mongols on Alps would have not many chances really .

I just found a Chinese source ("National Geography of China", volume 9, 2007) and it stated that more than 80 of such towns were built by the southern Song. Fishing Town is the best preserved one, due to the fact that the Mongols failed to take that town by force and they ultimately took that town through bribery.

The outer walls of the Fishing Town, built directly on a cliff

Naima · Aug 5, 2014

purakjelia said:
I just found a Chinese source ("National Geography of China", volume 9, 2007) and it stated that more than 80 of such towns were built by the southern Song. Fishing Town is the best preserved one, due to the fact that the Mongols failed to take that town by force and they ultimately took that town through bribery.

The outer walls of the Fishing Town, built directly on a cliff

So you see , how mongols got problems with 80 walled towns , imagine with the thousands fortifications in Western Europe . not talking of the same orography that becomes much more rough toward Alps .

mingming · Aug 5, 2014

Naima said:
So you see , how mongols got problems with 80 walled towns , imagine with the thousands fortifications in Western Europe . not talking of the same orography that becomes much more rough toward Alps .

They had problems because they didn't have the technology to take fortified towns. When the Mongols obtained counterweight trebuchets from the Persians, those Chinese walls went down really fast. By the time the Mongols went to Europe, such technology were already in their possession, so this argument is flawed.

purakjelia · Aug 5, 2014

Ok, maybe we should open another thread on Chinese military, and let's just keep this thread to Samurai vs. Knight.

Naima · Aug 5, 2014

mingming said:
They had problems because they didn't have the technology to take fortified towns. When the Mongols obtained counterweight trebuchets from the Persians, those Chinese walls went down really fast. By the time the Mongols went to Europe, such technology were already in their possession, so this argument is flawed.

Yes but the problem is not take one castle , but divide the army and take thousands and then you have to garrison each one of them to not let it be retaken when the army moves , so basically it woudl split and split the army till they have no more the power to take anything and become to weak numerically , putting themselves into a trap .

purakjelia said:
Ok, maybe we should open another thread on Chinese military, and let's just keep this thread to Samurai vs. Knight.

Yes that might be interesting .

mingming · Aug 5, 2014

Naima said:
Yes but the problem is not take one castle , but divide the army and take thousands and then you have to garrison each one of them to not let it be retaken when the army moves , so basically it woudl split and split the army till they have no more the power to take anything and become to weak numerically , putting themselves into a trap .

The Mongols would do what they always do - use local garrisons who surrendered. Honestly, if the Mongols made it to Europe we will probably see a replay of what happened in China. Most of their army would be composed of locals.

Naima · Aug 5, 2014

mingming said:
The Mongols would do what they always do - use local garrisons who surrendered. Honestly, if the Mongols made it to Europe we will probably see a replay of what happened in China. Most of their army would be composed of locals.

They made to Europe , but China and Europe are very very different playing grounds, but I think we can move that discussion in the other purakjelia thread perhaps.

YouLoveMeYouKnowIt · Aug 5, 2014

I'll let this one slip; people are going to take me as obsessing over a claim made by the OP, who isn't even interested in discussion anymore.

heavenlykaghan · Aug 5, 2014

Naima said:
How many castles are in China from the Song period?

those are the ones in europe , some are from after the proper age , and most destroyed are not listed .List of castles in Europe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

but gives an idea of the fortresses density of Europe , the whole western europe was an almoust continuous fortress .

You should realize that Chinese fortified towns presents a strategically very different problem than contemporary medieval castles. Important Chinese towns and cities had tens or even hundreds of thousands of people and were largely self sufficient units where as castles often had a few dozen to at most a thousand people within its walls. Even large fortified towns in Europe only had a couple of thousand people. Castles are not self sufficient and were usually taken through cutting off food supplies, not by storming. Besiegers with a good management of logistics could eventually force the besieged to engage in field battle. The Mongols would have trouble with western Europe less because of walls but more because of the lack of grazing field for foraging in Europe, which would limit the mongol's army size and food supplies for their horses. Furthermore the decentralized nature of medieval fiefs would mean there isn't a command center to take and there would be much more small power centers to conquer. Basically the same factors that limits western europeans power projection abilities (lack of grazing ground for cavalries and decentralization) would also make it harder to completely conquer.

ise · Aug 5, 2014

Is Europe really that deficient in grazing ground, though? Almost all of it then was just wide open space carpeted in grass because the people were too unsophisticated and primitive to practice proper agriculture - as using practically stone age tools and methods with tribe-like fiefdoms littered everywhere

ise · Aug 5, 2014

Ajanbahu said:
A nation with more than 400 million people could not save its capital because it was busy saving European civilians? Claims get wilder, so Chinese could have ruled 75 percent of Eurasia but they were pacifists, they could have defeated Europe but they were busy saving civilians(all of them) and now we are told that bandits had more civility than "any" European.

Truth hurts. The vast majority of Chinese "modernized" armies were sitting on their laurels, and a few were even engaged in protecting the Euros from the Boxers.

The one "modernized" army that actually did its job against the Euros was the Kansu Braves and they were widely feared by Euros who were used to only backstabbing and murdering civilians.

And yes, the "honghuzi" bandits were reported to be better behaved than Russian soldiers by Western eyewitnesses.

Sorry if you can't accept this.

heavenlykaghan · Aug 5, 2014

hashashini said:
Ming china has rarely been in wars during this period, their economy was on decline and 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.

Not really. Throughout the war the Ming land force never surpassed 54,000. In field battles it was quite evident that the Japanese was afraid to engage after the battle of Pyongyang whenever the Ming had a sizable field artillery. Even without artillery, the two sides were quite even and the Ming often found its army to be more mobile thanks to its large cavalry component. In the battle of jiksan for example, the Japanese had 5,000 whereas the Ming had 4,000, they exchanged fire (composite bows were apparently as efficient as muskets), until the Ming outflanked the Japanese thanks to its cavalries and forced the later to retreat. If this war took place on more open terrains like Manchuria, the battles would have favored the Ming even more.

mingming · Aug 5, 2014

heavenlykaghan said:
Not really. Throughout the war the Ming land force never surpassed 54,000. In field battles it was quite evident that the Japanese was afraid to engage after the battle of Pyongyang whenever the Ming had a sizable field artillery. Even without artillery, the two sides were quite even and the Ming often found its army to be more mobile thanks to its large cavalry component. In the battle of jiksan for example, the Japanese had 5,000 whereas the Ming had 4,000, they exchanged fire (composite bows were apparently as efficient as muskets), until the Ming outflanked the Japanese thanks to its cavalries and forced the later to retreat. If this war took place on more open terrains like Manchuria, the battles would have favored the Ming even more.

Also, I would note that Ming defeats in the field were either due to commander error or the fact that they were assaulting well-defended fortresses, not because Ming soldiers were weak or lacked good weapons.

Search

Search

16th Century Japanese Samurai Army against European Contemporaries

purakjelia

Naima

Naima

Naima

purakjelia

Naima

zincwarrior

purakjelia

Naima

mingming

purakjelia

Naima

mingming

Naima

YouLoveMeYouKnowIt

heavenlykaghan

ise

ise

heavenlykaghan

mingming

More History Discussions

Recent History Discussions

Trending History Discussions