European/West vs. Japanese/East (Samurai)

[ElKarlo]

Ok if you get away from the katana vs braodsword circle jerk for sec. As it is a stupid argument. The broadsword was a late Mid ages weapon or even Ren, while the katana as we know it was actually from the 1700's to the mid 1800's. It's like comparing WWII planes to earl 30's planes. They existed in radically different times.

If you note when the Japanese were most successful, was in their invasion of Korea during the 1590's. Guess what, they were using Spanish pike/musket formations and tactics. I think that in of it's self should be the biggest indicator right there. As the Japanese tactics in battle were pretty much a giant CF otherwise, which you will note the massive CF battle of Sekigahara in 1600, when there seems to be a regression in tactics/strat.

 

[Gurkha]

Not the most accurate information, but definitely interesting esp. for people who read and conribute to this thread. Enjoy :icon_chee

The 6 Most Insane Underdog Stories in the History of Battle | Cracked.com

 

[KnightTemplar]

Not the most accurate information, but definitely interesting esp. for people who read and conribute to this thread. Enjoy :icon_chee

The 6 Most Insane Underdog Stories in the History of Battle | Cracked.com

"Mel cut the Bridge from the movie, claiming it looked 'Too Jew-ey'.":icon_chee

 

[KnightTemplar]

I'm being greedy of course, but no Bannockburn? 3,000 Scots vs 15,000 English(and French and German...)without a Anti-Semetic Australian in sight. Result? "Two hundred pairs of Spurs all red, were taken form the Knights there dead."

Which is Medieval-speak for England losing 200 Knights and thousands of footsoldiers against a lightly-armed Scottish army they out-numbered 5 to 1. The Scots lost two Knights...according to legend, they were killed after laughing so hard at the English they fell off their horses...

 

[Gurkha]

I'm being greedy of course, but no Bannockburn? 3,000 Scots vs 15,000 English(and French and German...)without a Anti-Semetic Australian in sight. Result? "Two hundred pairs of Spurs all red, were taken form the Knights there dead."

Which is Medieval-speak for England losing 200 Knights and thousands of footsoldiers against a lightly-armed Scottish army they out-numbered 5 to 1. The Scots lost two Knights...according to legend, they were killed after laughing so hard at the English they fell off their horses...

:icon_chee Never heard of Bannockburn, but it definitely sounds interesting. How was all this done?

I believe hard-living makes good soldiers, and the scots definitely led very hard lives. What about weapons and technical assistance? Did they forge their own blades and have training systems that were all their own?

Unfortunately I don't know much about Scots (or the Irish and Welsh for that matter). Where were they originally from? They are all Celtic aren't they? Who were the picts? What about Norman, Saxon and Viking influences? What were their primary weapons (besides the famous claymore and dirk), equipment and techniques?

What was it that enabled them to defeat such formidable and better-equipped armies?

Would be very interesting if you could enlighten us.

 

[YeahBee]

a curved blade like a saber would facilitate that same movement and would result in a much smoother draw and strike for a sword of the same length (maybe one of the reasons the cavalry favored them over a straight blade?!?).

a curved blade slices better then a straight one on horseback, you are riding past someone and almost only sticking i out to the sides, it will slide of the one you are slicing easier, and if you are one horseback you are not stationary so you won't be thrusting

knights and stuff used lances, axes/hammers

their swords were straighter becausee it could bash easier, chanimall works great against slicng but thrusting and bashing obviously still works

 

[SweetDaddySiki]

their swords were straighter becausee it could bash easier, chanimall works great against slicng but thrusting and bashing obviously still works

European swords are designed to cut and stab, not bash. If you want to bash, you grab a hammer.

 

[YeahBee]

European swords are designed to cut and stab, not bash. If you want to bash, you grab a hammer.

call it chop or whatever you want, the point of the curved weapon, the sabre or similar is still to favour cutting more then a straight sword does

you don't thrust with one as a mobile rider shouldn't be stationary

for a knight it was different, they rode in with lances and the sword was their back up weapon when they became stationary in the thick of the battle

likewise huge ass two hand swords were often used as spears to attack riders

 

[KnightTemplar]

:icon_chee Never heard of Bannockburn, but it definitely sounds interesting. How was all this done?

I believe hard-living makes good soldiers, and the scots definitely led very hard lives. What about weapons and technical assistance? Did they forge their own blades and have training systems that were all their own?

Unfortunately I don't know much about Scots (or the Irish and Welsh for that matter). Where were they originally from? They are all Celtic aren't they? Who were the picts? What about Norman, Saxon and Viking influences? What were their primary weapons (besides the famous claymore and dirk), equipment and techniques?

What was it that enabled them to defeat such formidable and better-equipped armies?

Would be very interesting if you could enlighten us.

A lot of questions there, brother, and I'm no expert. But I'll do my best(and no doubt will be ripped apart by people who actually know what they're talking about:redface.

Scots, Irish and Welsh are all, gentically speaking, pretty much identical. Yes, they are all Celtic. The Picts are a bit of a mystery, mainly because they left no written record(or at least none that anyone has been able to decipher so far). They were the original inhabitants of Scotland. The name Picti or Pict is actually a Roman term and means "Painted Ones" - the Picts used to paint themselves with blue tribal markings.

The Picts were no match in open battle for the professional Roman Army. Unfortunately for the Romans, after the first battle, which the Romans won easily, the Picts learned their lesson. They used their intimate knowledge of the land, combined with superior one-on-one fighting skills(the Roman Legions were only world-beaters when they could work and fight as a team)to slaughter thousands of Legionaires in guerilla warfare. According to legend, the entire Ninth Legion, approx 4 - 5,000 strong, was wiped out to the last man by the Picts. Although even professional historians have yet to agree as to what actually happend.

Eventually, sick of losing men in a country that had precious few natural resources, the Romans built two BFO walls and declared that this was the final border of the Empire. Scotland was never completely conquered by Rome.

The Picts were eventually defeated about the 9th Century AD by Irish settlers. One of their Kings married a Pictish princess and the two groups gradually merged, forming the basis of what eventually become the Scottish race. Many Scots, including myself, still carry Pictish DNA.

Although it is of course entirely fictional, one of the Conan novels has a wonderful and probably very accurate discription of the real Picts:

"Conan had borne a blade against the howling Pictish hordes, and deeply respected their battle-prowess. Not even the mighty warriors of the frozen North, in their berserker madness, could long stand against the inhuman ferocity of the Picts..."

The Norse(Viking simply means "to go raiding")had a huge impact on Scotland. The Norwegians conquered and held the northern Islands of Scotland for hundreds of years. Eventually they were defeated by Sommerled, Lord of the Isles. Sommerled himself was half-Norse, and was the ancestor of a racial group know as the Norse-Gaels; people with both Scottish and Viking ancestry. Today, almost 500,000 people can trace their lineage back to Sommerled. This is the second largest group of people in the world who are descended from a single ancestor. Only Ghenghis Khan has more descendants.

Past my bedtime. If anyone is still interested, I'll post more tomorrow.

 

[Gurkha]

A lot of questions there, brother, and I'm no expert. But I'll do my best(and no doubt will be ripped apart by people who actually know what they're talking about:redface.

Scots, Irish and Welsh are all, gentically speaking, pretty much identical. Yes, they are all Celtic. The Picts are a bit of a mystery, mainly because they left no written record(or at least none that anyone has been able to decipher so far). They were the original inhabitants of Scotland. The name Picti or Pict is actually a Roman term and means "Painted Ones" - the Picts used to paint themselves with blue tribal markings.

The Picts were no match in open battle for the professional Roman Army. Unfortunately for the Romans, after the first battle, which the Romans won easily, the Picts learned their lesson. They used their intimate knowledge of the land, combined with superior one-on-one fighting skills(the Roman Legions were only world-beaters when they could work and fight as a team)to slaughter thousands of Legionaires in guerilla warfare. According to legend, the entire Ninth Legion, approx 4 - 5,000 strong, was wiped out to the last man by the Picts. Although even professional historians have yet to agree as to what actually happend.

Eventually, sick of losing men in a country that had precious few natural resources, the Romans built two BFO walls and declared that this was the final border of the Empire. Scotland was never completely conquered by Rome.

The Picts were eventually defeated about the 9th Century AD by Irish settlers. One of their Kings married a Pictish princess and the two groups gradually merged, forming the basis of what eventually become the Scottish race. Many Scots, including myself, still carry Pictish DNA.

Although it is of course entirely fictional, one of the Conan novels has a wonderful and probably very accurate discription of the real Picts:

"Conan had borne a blade against the howling Pictish hordes, and deeply respected their battle-prowess. Not even the mighty warriors of the frozen North, in their berserker madness, could long stand against the inhuman ferocity of the Picts..."

The Norse(Viking simply means "to go raiding")had a huge impact on Scotland. The Norwegians conquered and held the northern Islands of Scotland for hundreds of years. Eventually they were defeated by Sommerled, Lord of the Isles. Sommerled himself was half-Norse, and was the ancestor of a racial group know as the Norse-Gaels; people with both Scottish and Viking ancestry. Today, almost 500,000 people can trace their lineage back to Sommerled. This is the second largest group of people in the world who are descended from a single ancestor. Only Ghenghis Khan has more descendants.

Past my bedtime. If anyone is still interested, I'll post more tomorrow.

That was both informative and interesting.

So the Picts are basically Celtic right? Are they different in any way (origin, language, customs, physical characteristics) that you know of from the rest of the Celts?

What about battle-tactics, weapons, armor and training? How did they develop the prowess to defeat both the Romans as well as other European Knights? Did they have major Urban centers at that time or did they live in isolated clans spread out all over the country as I imagine?

It would also be interesting to learn about the Picts Vs Norsemen battles, how did the Norwegians manage it? Am pretty sure they wouldn't be able to land an entire army, so how did they capture Scotland?

Thanks for fielding all those questions, it's always interesting to learn of another culture. :icon_chee

 

[KnightTemplar]

That was both informative and interesting.

So the Picts are basically Celtic right? Are they different in any way (origin, language, customs, physical characteristics) that you know of from the rest of the Celts?

What about battle-tactics, weapons, armor and training? How did they develop the prowess to defeat both the Romans as well as other European Knights? Did they have major Urban centers at that time or did they live in isolated clans spread out all over the country as I imagine?

It would also be interesting to learn about the Picts Vs Norsemen battles, how did the Norwegians manage it? Am pretty sure they wouldn't be able to land an entire army, so how did they capture Scotland?

Thanks for fielding all those questions, it's always interesting to learn of another culture. :icon_chee

Don't take anything I say as Gospel, mate; I'm a very long way from being an expert.:redface:

As far as I'm aware, there were never any pitched battles between Norsemen and Picts; by the time the Viking Age came around, the Picts had interbred with the Irish Tribes and became what we now know as Scots. The Norwegians conquered the Islands such as Orkney and Shetland and they became a separate kingdom from the mainland until well into the Middle Ages. The Norse raided the coastline of Scotland but, as you say, did not try to land armies large enough to conquer the whole country. The one major exception to this is the Battle of Largs, in which a Norwegian fleet attempted to land an army. There was a fairly minor battle that the Scots won.

When he realised that he could not land a big enough force to do the job, the Norwegian Jarl(lord/king)in command of the fleet gave up and sailed back home.

Pre-Christian Celtic warfare was based very much on single-combat. The Celts used swords, spears, sling-shots and axes. They also made extensive use of battle chariots.

Very little is known of Pictish methods of fighting, but it probably was very similar to Celts. The Picts were also past-masters of guerilla warfare. After the first battle against the highly trained, professional Roman Legions, which the Picts lost badly, they never again fought pitched battles against the Romans. They preferred to ambush isolate patrols or camps, especially at night.

They were excellent hand to hand combatants; their culture, like the Celts, would have emphasized personal courage, strength and skill, as opposed to the Romans who preferred to fight as part of a team. Also, the Picts lived very hard lives, with a minimum of "technology". Although the average Roman soldier would be far tougher physically than his modern-day counterpart, the Picts were even harder. They would have been bloodied in combat between the Pictish Tribes and toughend by the challenge of simply living such a cold, harsh country.

One on one, a Pictish warrior would probably have the edge over a Roman Legionair who was trained to fight as part of a Legion.

The Pre-Christian Celts, especially the Irish, were head-hunters. The skull of a worthy opponent was a highly valued trophy. It's possible the Picts followed the same belief and took heads from Romans they killed.

There was not a single King of the Picts. They lived in tribes, each to their own area and each controlled by a Chief/King. This is another reason the Romans had such a tough time up here; even if they managed to find and slaughter one tribe and their king, that did'nt mean they had conquered the whole country. Just one part of it.

Hadrian's Wall, which runs coast to coast across Scotland, is still partly visible today. Point to the ruins and ask any Englishman why the Wall was built and you'll always get the same reply: "To keep the Scots out!":icon_twis

In fact, it did'nt always work; large parts of the Wall were overrun, burnt and the land behind raided on at least three occasions.

 

[esotamoc]

One on one, a Pictish warrior would probably have the edge over a Roman Legionair who was trained to fight as part of a Legion.

.

I disagree with this point because the roman soldier was heavily armoured(in comparison) and they were protected by their huge shields. One on one fighting wouldnt be much different for the roman centurion. 2 picts against one roman would be different as would an ambush situation where the roman was unprepared to take advantage of his superior arms and armour.

Fighting as a unit a group of roman soldiers could defeat much larger numbers in open battle.

 

[KnightTemplar]

I disagree with this point because the roman soldier was heavily armoured(in comparison) and they were protected by their huge shields. One on one fighting wouldnt be much different for the roman centurion. 2 picts against one roman would be different as would an ambush situation where the roman was unprepared to take advantage of his superior arms and armour.

Fighting as a unit a group of roman soldiers could defeat much larger numbers in open battle.

But armour also slows you down. The Pict would attack the limbs, neck etc of the Roman soldier. All of which, of course, would be unarmoured. The shield was not used so much as personal defence but locked together in shield walls.

The Romans were superb at fighting in open battle, in large units. But they were gentically inferior to the true warrior races(Celts, Picts, Germans)and when forced to fight one on one almost always came second. The lifestyle of the Pictish warrior, just surviving in such a harsh enviroment, would have toughend them both physically and mentally to a degree we can barely imagine.

Added to this, people fight as they train. The Romans trained to fight as a team. The Picts trained to fight individually. Just as open battle favoured the Romans, so single combat would have given the advantage to the Picts.

 

[SweetDaddySiki]

But armour also slows you down. The Pict would attack the limbs, neck etc of the Roman soldier. All of which, of course, would be unarmoured.

This is extremely difficult to do against a man who is actively defending himself and trying to kill you. It requires fine motor skills which need considerable training and degrade in stress. The average celt or pict, who would have little training and poor equipment would be easy meat one on one for a legionaire. Armour is a *huge* advantage or no one would wear it, and well armoured Romans would be able to shrug off blows that would instantly kill an unarmoured man. The Romans generally chopped up celt or pictish armies in pitched battles unless their foe was able to ambush them or swamp them with vastly superior numbers

 

[esotamoc]

But armour also slows you down. The Pict would attack the limbs, neck etc of the Roman soldier. All of which, of course, would be unarmoured. The shield was not used so much as personal defence but locked together in shield walls.

The Romans were superb at fighting in open battle, in large units. But they were gentically inferior to the true warrior races(Celts, Picts, Germans)and when forced to fight one on one almost always came second. The lifestyle of the Pictish warrior, just surviving in such a harsh enviroment, would have toughend them both physically and mentally to a degree we can barely imagine.

Added to this, people fight as they train. The Romans trained to fight as a team. The Picts trained to fight individually. Just as open battle favoured the Romans, so single combat would have given the advantage to the Picts.

This is completely wrong. If you gave the celts or germanic tribes the same equipment and same training then perhaps they would have a genetic advantage.

The above poster nailed it- listen to him, he knows his stuff.

 

[KnightTemplar]

This is extremely difficult to do against a man who is actively defending himself and trying to kill you. It requires fine motor skills which need considerable training and degrade in stress. The average celt or pict, who would have little training and poor equipment would be easy meat one on one for a legionaire. Armour is a *huge* advantage or no one would wear it, and well armoured Romans would be able to shrug off blows that would instantly kill an unarmoured man. The Romans generally chopped up celt or pictish armies in pitched battles unless their foe was able to ambush them or swamp them with vastly superior numbers

Wrong, I'm afraid. From what professional historians have been able to reconstruct, the Pictish culture, like the Celts and Germanic tribes, was based on personal courage and skill in single combat. Both the Picts and Celts had groups of elite, full time warriors. These men would have been trained from childhood in the various weapons and fighting techniques. And they would have gained battlefield experiance fighting against other tribes.

It was not unknown for battles between Celtic tribes to be decided by single combat between two champions rather than pitched battle. This gives some indication of the level of skill of the warriors; these were not part-time, militia soldiers who spent most of their lives as farmers, for example. These were a warrior elite who's whole reason for living was combat.

The Celts used to say, "Until death, the warrior must swing his sword." In other words, if you were born into the warrior class, you died in it. There was no retirement.

The Romans had superior technology, for example the Gladius sword was a superb weapon for fighting in a shield-wall, where there was no room to swing at an opponent. In pitched battles, where they could use their superior teamwork and tactics(a word named after a Roman general after all)the Romans could easily defeat larger "Barbarian" armies. If the tactics failed and the shiled-walls broke, if the Romans had to face an opponent who had trained his whole life for one to one combat, nine times out of ten the Romans lost.

You fight as you train; a world class BJJ grappler with no training in striking is'nt going to last one round of Thai or Boxing against someone who specializes in that type of fighting. And the first few UFC's showed what happens when a striker tries to fight a Grappler on the ground...

 

[KnightTemplar]

This is completely wrong. If you gave the celts or germanic tribes the same equipment and same training then perhaps they would have a genetic advantage.

The above poster nailed it- listen to him, he knows his stuff.

I beg to differ. The Romans trained and fought the way the did because they had too. The Romans were incredibly tough compared to us, because our vastly superior technology allows us to live much more comfortable and safer lives. But even back then, the same applied to the Romans themselves; because Rome was the most advanced city state in the world, it's soldiers were physically and mentally weaker than Picts, Celts or Germans who had to live in much harsher enviroments.

The Romans understood this better than anyone and developed a system of warfare that played to their strengths. Take them out of that comfort zone and they were easy meat. In single combat, a Roman soldier simply did'nt have the training or sheer muscle needed to defeat a "barbarian".

The real Sparticus is another case in point; up against highly trained Gladiators, in situations where they could not fight as a team, the Legionaires went out like pussies. IIRC, Sparticus managed to defeat and massacre two or three whole Roman armies before they finally brought him down.

 

[SweetDaddySiki]

Wrong, I'm afraid. From what professional historians have been able to reconstruct, the Pictish culture, like the Celts and Germanic tribes, was based on personal courage and skill in single combat. Both the Picts and Celts had groups of elite, full time warriors. These men would have been trained from childhood in the various weapons and fighting techniques. And they would have gained battlefield experiance fighting against other tribes.
It was not unknown for battles between Celtic tribes to be decided by single combat between two champions rather than pitched battle. This gives some indication of the level of skill of the warriors; these were not part-time, militia soldiers who spent most of their lives as farmers, for example. These were a warrior elite who's whole reason for living was combat.

Yes..they had groups of well fed elite warriors with good gear and superb training. But the majority of celts and picts would be skinny, poorly fed peasants who went into battle with no armour, no real training and might not even have a metal weapon. They would form the majority of most armies.

The Romans had superior technology, for example the Gladius sword was a superb weapon for fighting in a shield-wall, where there was no room to swing at an opponent. In pitched battles, where they could use their superior teamwork and tactics(a word named after a Roman general after all)the Romans could easily defeat larger "Barbarian" armies. If the tactics failed and the shield-walls broke, if the Romans had to face an opponent who had trained his whole life for one to one combat, nine times out of ten the Romans lost.

The classic marian legion didn't fight in shield walls. They fought in a fairly open formation which allowed the legionnaire room to fence as an individual. It was actually the celts who fought in tightly packed shieldwalls and phalanxes. This was because the militiamen who made up the majority of the celtic or pictish armies had brittle morale and tended to flee. Keeping them tightly packed with a core of tough nobles to keep an eye on them lent weight to their formation and helped keep them from running.

 

[SweetDaddySiki]

because Rome was the most advanced city state in the world, it's soldiers were physically and mentally weaker than Picts, Celts or Germans who had to live in much harsher enviroments.
The Romans understood this better than anyone and developed a system of warfare that played to their strengths. Take them out of that comfort zone and they were easy meat. In single combat, a Roman soldier simply did'nt have the training or sheer muscle needed to defeat a "barbarian".

The typical Marian legionnaire could march ten miles with a 70 pound load, fight a battle then end the day by building a fort to sleep in. They would be better fed than the typical 'barbarian' and probably bigger as a result. The 'hulking giant barbarians' of myth would only apply to the noble classes who ate alot of red meat and didn't do much hard labour. typical celt would be short and skinny.

Its interesting to note that one of the reasons for the decline of Roman infantry came about after a large portion of its numbers were drawn directly from the barbarian tribes, who refused to carry the bone crushing loads of the classic marian legions.

The real Sparticus is another case in point; up against highly trained Gladiators, in situations where they could not fight as a team, the Legionaires went out like pussies. IIRC, Sparticus managed to defeat and massacre two or three whole Roman armies before they finally brought him down.

The 'legions' he defeated were hastily scraped up and equipped draftees and city guard units. The real legions were off on the frontiers, and once Spartacus faced a proper legion lead by an experienced commander he was defeated.

 

[KnightTemplar]

Yes..they had groups of well fed elite warriors with good gear and superb training. But the majority of celts and picts would be skinny, poorly fed peasants who went into battle with no armour, no real training and might not even have a metal weapon. They would form the majority of most armies.



The classic marian legion didn't fight in shield walls. They fought in a fairly open formation which allowed the legionnaire room to fence as an individual. It was actually the celts who fought in tightly packed shieldwalls and phalanxes. This was because the militiamen who made up the majority of the celtic or pictish armies had brittle morale and tended to flee. Keeping them tightly packed with a core of tough nobles to keep an eye on them lent weight to their formation and helped keep them from running.

Really? I was under the impression that the Battle of the Tuteburg Forest was a crushing defeat for the Romans precisely because the legions were forced to fight in small groups rather than large formations.

The last attempt to completely conquer Scotland by the Romans cost them 4,000 dead. The majority of those were killed when ambushed by Picts and forced to fight one on one. If the you are correct and the Pictish warrior elite was relatively small, then many of these Romans would have been killed by "skinny, poorly fed peasants who might not even have a metal weapon."

Contemporary Roman accounts reveal that the Romans themselves could not understand how the Picts were able to endure such an inhospitable country with little protection; life in Scotland at that time was far harder than most Legionaires were used to, and they regarded the Picts as savage animals.

One final point regarding metal weapons: they don't always guarantee victory. The Norse landed in Vineland(America)about 500 years before Columbus got lost on the way to China. But they left because they did'nt want to spend time, money and lives fighting the Native American tribes who were armed, in those days, with stone axes etc.