View Poll Results: Samurai vs Medieval Knight

Voters
32. You may not vote on this poll
  • Samurai

    20 62.50%
  • Medieval Knight

    12 37.50%
Page 45 of 49 FirstFirst ... 3637383940414243444546474849 LastLast
Results 661 to 675 of 728

Thread: Samurai against knight

  1. #661
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Contrary by Nature.
    zraver's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Oct 06
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,528
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    A few thoughts. Rome never enjoyed the communications advantage of the Mongols. Thus, Rome never planned a multi-battle campaign where no one single battle could affect the outcome, Genghis fought a 100 mile campaign, luring his enemies into a trap over a 10 day period, That kind of thinking was absent during Roman height.

    Hell, the Mongols were the first who thought a battle can last more than a day. That alone gave them a leg up on the Romans.
    Sir you are mistaken. Rome had interior communication every bit as good as the mongols and using very nearly that same technology that would exist until the telegraph finally killed the pony express royal rodes and relay riders. Procopius says the Cursus publicus' system of post roads, post houses and relay riders was 10x faster per day than a man alone. This means they could move messages between 200-400miles a day. We know from Constatine that the post road stretched from at least Anatollia to Great Britannia and assuredly also covered the Levant and former portions of the Persian Empire which inspired the system in the first place.

  2. #662
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    29,353
    Interior. Mongol communications was effective outside of Mongol territory.
    Chimo

  3. #663
    Senior Contributor Doktor's Avatar
    Join Date
    25 Aug 08
    Location
    Skopje, Macedonia
    Posts
    13,668
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    Interior. Mongol communications was effective outside of Mongol territory.
    Have Romans expanded so fast so far away?

    Roman Empire (sans Byzantine),ceized 7 centuries before Mongols. Why do we compare the two?
    Last edited by Doktor; 13 Aug 16, at 22:13.
    No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

    To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

  4. #664
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Contrary by Nature.
    zraver's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Oct 06
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,528
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    Interior. Mongol communications was effective outside of Mongol territory.
    Roman merchants traveled as far as China and made regular port calls to India. In addition they had formal intelligence agents (if not a formal intelligence service) along with an Imperial General staff. Rome was and needed to be very aware of what was happening inside and outside its borders. In addition they were cosntantly being fed intelligence by those seeking Roman favors or protection. Fool proof? No, but neither were they blind.

    The mongols big advantages were mobility way from the coast, archery and and the stirrup. Rome had strategic mobility via the navy, fortified cities, near industrial levels of economic output and the attendant superior logistics. Neither really held an advantage over the other in terms of communication, professionalism or intelligence gathering.

  5. #665
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Contrary by Nature.
    zraver's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Oct 06
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,528
    Quote Originally Posted by Doktor View Post
    Have Romans expanded so fast so far away?

    Roman Empire (sans Byzantine),ceized 7 centuries before Mongols. Why do we compare the two?
    The Romans fought related peoples, losing some, winning some. Had the Huns arrived a 200 years earlier they likely would have been smashed. Rome was very good at finding out what worked and copying it. hence why an infantry army that conquered the western world converted to a primarily mounted force by the 4th century when it went on to the defensive.

  6. #666
    Senior Contributor Monash's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Mar 10
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    1,483
    Quote Originally Posted by Doktor View Post
    Have Romans expanded so fast so far away?

    Roman Empire (sans Byzantine),ceized 7 centuries before Mongols. Why do we compare the two?
    True, the Mongol Empire expanded further and more quickly than perhaps any other Empire in history. Outside of the Chinese dynasties established by Mongol rulers (which barbarically absorbed their rulers) it also collapsed fairly quickly to. Rome and Byzantium lasted almost 1000 years, the Mongols outside of China how long?

    IMO this is a function of the nature of their growth. Alexanders empire also grew much more rapidly than other Empires of the era but it didn't outlast his death. The lesson seems to be that conquering a region or peoples is easy, uniting disparate groups together under one banner requires long term planning and commitment, doing things like co-opting prominent locals into your political system, implementing a centralized bureaucracy, legal system and coinage etc and .... time. Locals need to see the benefits to be gained from being part of a greater whole - if that doesn't happen they don't buy in.

    From my limited reading the Mongol empire was basically a continental sized protection racket. An army appears on the horizon, threatens to loot, pillage and burn everything in sight if the local leaders don't submit and then rides away, threatening to return if the locals fail to remain 'loyal' or don't deliver regular tribute in the form demanded. As a system for extracting wealth it works well and certainly it required little or no investment by the Mongols in the conquered states but it also means the their subjects had 'zero' commitment to their rulers.

    As for communication lines, while I agree that the Mongol armies had for its time a highly efficient communication system it still wasn't up to the task at hand. Europe was simply to far away from the Mongols political center of power to keep large Mongol armies in the West while maintaining 'control' from home. Every time a Mongol army invaded the West it was political considerations/emergencies at home which forced their retreat not local military reversals. From their perspective the longer the Generals in charge In Europe were away the longer they were out of the loop politically and logistically. By the same token the further they were away from the Khan and high officials at home the less authority those officials had over the commanders of their western hordes - and those armies were a large chunk of their available manpower, enough to make any royal family member a bit nervous about leaving them so far away for so long.

    Assuming for example that a more independently minded general had ever lead one of the invasions we might well have seen the establishment (however briefly) of an independent Khanate in Eastern Europe. So I think technology puts a finite size on the area any one political power can directly control - unless that control grows 'organically' over time.
    Last edited by Monash; 14 Aug 16, at 02:52.

  7. #667
    A Self Important Senior Contributor troung's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Aug 03
    Posts
    8,018
    e Mongols though late to ancient empire game were the stereotype for invaders turned local in language, cultural and religion. Rome turned barbarians into Romans, barbarians turned mongols into locals.
    Three of the states became Turkic, like the bulk of their troops not like the settled public, and the descendants of the Yuan ravaged Northern China, while speaking Mongolian.

    Though had the Mongols invaded a `100 years later and penetrated deeper into Central/Western Europe or had they gone to the Levant the massive crusader style castles would have stumped them.
    They took bigger Chinese cities.

    The Romans fought related peoples, losing some, winning some. Had the Huns arrived a 200 years earlier they likely would have been smashed. Rome was very good at finding out what worked and copying it. hence why an infantry army that conquered the western world converted to a primarily mounted force by the 4th century when it went on to the defensive.
    The same could be said of the Chinese, fat lot of good that did...

    . hence why an infantry army that conquered the western world converted to a primarily mounted force by the 4th century when it went on to the defensive.
    And dropped the javelin and short sword.
    Last edited by troung; 14 Aug 16, at 05:29.
    To sit down with these men and deal with them as the representatives of an enlightened and civilized people is to deride ones own dignity and to invite the disaster of their treachery - General Matthew Ridgway

  8. #668
    Senior Contributor Triple C's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Apr 06
    Location
    Taipei, Taiwan
    Posts
    2,352
    Quote Originally Posted by Monash View Post
    I may well be wrong but I think by the time the attempted invasions started the Mongol ruling class of China had more or less been completely assimilated by the dominant (is it Han?) culture of northern China. Kublai Khan may have been linearly Mongol but the culture and language of his court was Chinese as were the bulk of his armies.
    The Yuan dynasty emperors had Mongolian names, spoke Mongolian and did not care much for Confucianism, beyond recognizing it as the religion of their native-Chinese bureaucrats. They did become more cultured at the expense of their warrior prowess, though. The stereotypical "sinicized" steppe conquerors were the founders of the Tang, Jin, and Qing empires.

    Ref: Mounted archer tactics, yes the tactics were not new, but I don't think predecessors of the Mongolian armies practiced mobile warfare with comparable frontage, depth or numbers. Also the Mongolians made excellent use of siege technology that they captured.
    Last edited by Triple C; 14 Aug 16, at 14:09.
    All those who are merciful with the cruel will come to be cruel to the merciful.
    -Talmud Kohelet Rabbah, 7:16.

  9. #669
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Contrary by Nature.
    zraver's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Oct 06
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,528
    Quote Originally Posted by troung View Post
    Three of the states became Turkic, like the bulk of their troops not like the settled public, and the descendants of the Yuan ravaged Northern China, while speaking Mongolian.
    Where is Mongolian used outside of Mongolia? Latin remains the root language of many European languages and the language of law, science and medicine. Roman ideas of government live on. Hell the last person to claim the title Caesar hasn't even been dead 100 years.



    [/quote]They took bigger Chinese cities.[/quote]

    They never took a crusader castle. With a few notable exceptions, city walls never really rivaled castles.

    The same could be said of the Chinese, fat lot of good that did...
    China never really put up a unified face to the Mongols and relied on a much less well developed road/ river network and it still took the Mongols generations to subdue China.

    And dropped the javelin and short sword.
    True they adopted the spatha and hasta for infantry fighting but the replaced the two pilum with five plumbatae which had better range than javalins or slings.

  10. #670
    A Self Important Senior Contributor troung's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Aug 03
    Posts
    8,018
    They never took a crusader castle. With a few notable exceptions, city walls never really rivaled castles.
    Crusader castles fell to other people using similar tech to what the Mongols themselves used, and massively thick and defended city walls have a special type of quality all of their own.

    Where is Mongolian used outside of Mongolia? Latin remains the root language of many European languages and the language of law, science and medicine. Roman ideas of government live on. Hell the last person to claim the title Caesar hasn't even been dead 100 years.
    We are typing in a Germanic language. Harking back to Rome and borrowing building design for the sole purpose of borrowing building design doesn't change the fact Latin is a basically dead language (Big Lizard sounds cooler in any language other than English I guess), our courts come from a common law system set up by a feudal thug who couldn't be everyone at once (in Virginia we use mispronounced Latin words to sound clever that's about it), or the fact the Czar had zlitch to do with Rome short of thinking it was a cool name. Western Europeans loved pointing out how Asiatic ("Mongol") the Czars were whenever talking about their backwards system of government.

    China never really put up a unified face to the Mongols and relied on a much less well developed road/ river network and it still took the Mongols generations to subdue China.
    The Jin put a cavalry force into the field that Rome never matched supported by massive infantry levies, and had large well fortified cities; and the Song had an army far larger than anything Rome put together, with rivers, fortified cities, a navy, and even some cavalry. Both states with their huge military establishments, far in excess of anything Rome ever faced, got snuffed out.

    The Ming failed to deal the death blow to the Mongol Khanates under the Ming, got raided heavily (who were after protection money not conquest), had an emperor taken prisoner (at the head of a field army in the six figures), and ended up getting swept from history by the Qing (peasant rebel in the north turned the final knife but the Qing finished off the Southern Ming and had been pummeling them for years), who relied heavily on their Mongol allies and themselves used a similar style of cavalry. China, even when "unified", in fact had centuries of getting pummeled by people who rode horses and shot arrows; all while having advanced science, a well organized form of government, a huge military, often huge cavalry, walls, and rivers. Despite all the advancements of China, they ended up more often than not paying bribes and/or catching a beating.

    Rome did not look so hot when they fought the Huns, and took plenty of losses when fighting the Parthians and Sassanian, both of whom had far less men than the Mongols. The Seljuks, with fewer men than the Mongols could muster, smashed the Byzantines.

    Mounted archery is not the be all and end all; but Turks, Mongols, Turko-Mongolians, Jurchens and the like racked up huge wins in East Asia, South Asia, South West Asia, and Europe. The style of warfare was adopted by sedentary states which came into contact with them. Rome fought Celts and Germans, went back and forth with Persia, got besmirched by the Huns, and was snuffed out by the Germans; and is famous for a style of combat it dropped when they came up against non-Greek, organized opposition, and which was not picked up by another state.

    ====
    Boxing math would suggest the Mamluks would beat the Samurai.
    Last edited by troung; 15 Aug 16, at 06:09.
    To sit down with these men and deal with them as the representatives of an enlightened and civilized people is to deride ones own dignity and to invite the disaster of their treachery - General Matthew Ridgway

  11. #671
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    29,353
    Quote Originally Posted by zraver View Post
    They never took a crusader castle
    But the Mamlukes did, using the same technologies the Mongols used against Chinese cities.
    Chimo

  12. #672
    Senior Contributor Mihais's Avatar
    Join Date
    15 Apr 08
    Location
    Transylvania
    Posts
    5,099
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    But the Mamlukes did, using the same technologies the Mongols used against Chinese cities.
    Numbers still matter.Fortifications are just force multipliers.
    The Mongols of Subudai tried to take castles in Poland,Bohemia and Hungary in 1241 and failed.They tried again in 1280,harder and they failed badly.On return they got trounced.The difference between the 2 was a 20 years program of stone castle building.Before,only a few were stone.Most were earth and wood.
    Those who know don't speak
    He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36

  13. #673
    Senior Contributor Monash's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Mar 10
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    1,483
    Quote Originally Posted by troung View Post
    Rome did not look so hot when they fought the Huns, and took plenty of losses when fighting the Parthians and Sassanian, both of whom had far less men than the Mongols. The Seljuks, with fewer men than the Mongols could muster, smashed the Byzantines.

    Mounted archery is not the be all and end all; but Turks, Mongols, Turko-Mongolians, Jurchens and the like racked up huge wins in East Asia, South Asia, South West Asia, and Europe. The style of warfare was adopted by sedentary states which came into contact with them. Rome fought Celts and Germans, went back and forth with Persia, got besmirched by the Huns, and was snuffed out by the Germans; and is famous for a style of combat it dropped when they came up against non-Greek, organized opposition, and which was not picked up by another state.
    A somewhat selective version of history IMO. Rome defeated most if not all of the nations/Empires you named repeatedly over centuries of warfare. The Parthians, Seleucids and Sassanids were all defeated or held at bay by Roman Armies. Rome invaded Germany - and then left after deciding it it wasn't worth keeping. As for the Huns they hit an Empire in decline. The same applies to the Byzantines who over the centuries repeatedly handed eastern horse armies their heads using both horse and combined arms. It was only under a weak leader who had let his military decline that the Turks finally scored a crushing victory at Manzikert. As for the Mongols I believe they only clashed once with Byzantium in the 12th century? by which time the the former Empire was a hollowed out rump of its former self not the militarily capbale force of the 9th and 10th centuries. An even then the two Empires entered into a friendly alliance.

    Its a bit like arguing that because the German Army lost the Battle of the Bulge they weren't in the same class as Allied Armies,and therefore obviously lacking the arms, tactics and leadership needed to win battles against them. I.e. pick a weak point in a specific empire or nations history and then base your assessment on that point alone. It would be more accurate to either average out the performance of both opponents over the lengths of their histories for a comparison or else simply pick both sides when they were at their strongest.
    Last edited by Monash; 15 Aug 16, at 10:31.

  14. #674
    Senior Contributor Mihais's Avatar
    Join Date
    15 Apr 08
    Location
    Transylvania
    Posts
    5,099
    Hmm,the Romans and Visigoths defeated the Huns in open battle.
    The next year the Huns managed to take Aquilea,then retreated after losing to elements of nature.

    The Byzantines did not lost Asia Minor due to Turks,but to inane civil war after Manzikert.The Kutrigurs,Uzes,Pechenegs,Cumans and Hungarians came ,tried and died.
    Last edited by Mihais; 15 Aug 16, at 11:29.
    Those who know don't speak
    He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36

  15. #675
    Senior Contributor Triple C's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Apr 06
    Location
    Taipei, Taiwan
    Posts
    2,352
    What evidence suggests siegecraft was less advanced in the Chinese Jin and Song dynasties? They build stone walls around cities and used siege guns. Both had vast bureaucratic structures that could recruit huge armies. I assume this put them at at equal footing Europeans in the very least, if not suggesting a certain superiority in technique.
    All those who are merciful with the cruel will come to be cruel to the merciful.
    -Talmud Kohelet Rabbah, 7:16.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Ninjas & Knights
    By Ironside in forum Ancient, Medieval & Early Modern Ages
    Replies: 106
    Last Post: 08 Jan 09,, 13:40
  2. Last Samurai gun question
    By Beaugeste93 in forum Small Arms and Personal Weapons
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 11 Jul 05,, 00:16

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •