Delvestius
Banned
1,000 vs. 1,000, 150 mounted troops each and gunpowder use relative to each respective army's tactics circa 1550.
Samurai vs. Landsknechts
- Thread starter Delvestius
- Start date
The biggest reason I voted samurai was mostly due to the fact that they could field a more varied amount of warriors. Some also fought with bow and spear, which made me more inclined to side with that since that versatility can be nice... so long as you don't factor in doctrine in retrospect
.
.deathscompanion1
Banned
Something to do with part time warriors with wooden armour and tinfoil swords against the mercenaries who burned Germany to the ground and dominated European warfare for half a century.
Delvestius
Banned
1. Boiled leather armor, which was surprisingly effective, cheaper to make and offered greater protection than the landsknecht's helmet and maybe chestplate.
2. By tin foil you mean damascus steel?
3. Sengoku Jedai was a period of almost constant civil was across Japan circa 1450-1600, the militaries of the time were anything but part-time.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt in that you are trying to start discussion, rather than presenting a perspective that is shoddy and lacking.
takerma
Banned
You can't compare Japanese steel to Damascus. You are getting confused by modern marketing calling pattern welded knifes Damascus. Anyway in battle between 1000 men sword is a sword and would work. Neither force armor would stop musket balls. Real issue is that 1550 is before true mass adoption of guns in Japan. Doctrine has not evolved yet. Also neither side sword will come out much with spears doing most of the melee fighting.
1550 landskneghts win and easily, guns win 1600 you will have the Japanese armed with superior guns(sites, dry box) using better gunpowder and having arguably better doctrine. I think they win.
1550 landskneghts win and easily, guns win
1600 you will have the Japanese armed with superior guns(sites, dry box) using better gunpowder and having arguably better doctrine. I think they win.
I voted landsknecht. I may be getting into movie tropes territory here, but my main reason was:
A samuray will fanatically follow his leader into a glorious death. A landsknecht will follow his leader fanatically because he has proven over and over again that he can bring his troop out of battle alive.
A samuray will fanatically follow his leader into a glorious death. A landsknecht will follow his leader fanatically because he has proven over and over again that he can bring his troop out of battle alive.
1. Japanese Sengoku armour is very similar to 15th c. European armour, the "boiled leather" is frequently brigandine or composite transitionals that may have solid metal breastplates with cloth or leather glued over.
2. It wasn't damascus steel at all, it wasn't kiln-cooked or pattern-welded, it was just folded to reduce the impurities.
It wasn't tinfoil but most German steel of the period is way better simply because of the base iron that went into it, and that's before you get into the science of early modern European metallurgy.
3. Both armies involved would contain a bunch of green men, part-time warriors, mercenaries, and feudal veterans. "Landsknechts" rarely operated alone and were not meant to operate alone, just like the "Samurai" rarely fought without support troops.
It's a pretty even fight, and depends enormously on the quality of the particular army and its leadership, though I'd favour the Germans slightly simply based how they performed against a wide variety of tactical innovations and enemy strategies.
That, and as Takerma says, arquebousses and crossbows are integrated into German infantry tactics by design somewhat earlier than Japanese tactics, and of course German cavalry, depending on who the 150 men are, could be much much much better than their Japanese counterparts.
There is a lot of mischief 150 armoured mercenary knights could do if deployed properly, more than 150 Japanese cavalry could do to a European infantry force ca. 15xx.
2. It wasn't damascus steel at all, it wasn't kiln-cooked or pattern-welded, it was just folded to reduce the impurities.
It wasn't tinfoil but most German steel of the period is way better simply because of the base iron that went into it, and that's before you get into the science of early modern European metallurgy.
3. Both armies involved would contain a bunch of green men, part-time warriors, mercenaries, and feudal veterans. "Landsknechts" rarely operated alone and were not meant to operate alone, just like the "Samurai" rarely fought without support troops.
It's a pretty even fight, and depends enormously on the quality of the particular army and its leadership, though I'd favour the Germans slightly simply based how they performed against a wide variety of tactical innovations and enemy strategies.
That, and as Takerma says, arquebousses and crossbows are integrated into German infantry tactics by design somewhat earlier than Japanese tactics, and of course German cavalry, depending on who the 150 men are, could be much much much better than their Japanese counterparts.
There is a lot of mischief 150 armoured mercenary knights could do if deployed properly, more than 150 Japanese cavalry could do to a European infantry force ca. 15xx.
Delvestius
Banned
^ nice analysis RGB
New question, for those inclined - If 1550 favors the Germans, at what year would the the fight be most equal, considering the growth of Japanese tech and tactics in the latter sixteenth century, compared to the Landsknechts' waning reputation and effectiveness?
New question, for those inclined - If 1550 favors the Germans, at what year would the the fight be most equal, considering the growth of Japanese tech and tactics in the latter sixteenth century, compared to the Landsknechts' waning reputation and effectiveness?
Why a landsknecht of all things? I don't think they were very comparable to samurai, my impression is that they were mercenary footsoldiers, more like ashigaru if anything. Shouldn't a more prescient comparison be something like samurai vs demi-lancers, or reiters, something of that ilk? Basically, armored and mounted guys who are, if not actual nobility, at least a grade above the common soldiery.
At this point pikes were the primary weapon of infantrymen in both Europe and Japan.
Delvestius
Banned
I picked the two because they were contemporary units with similar levels of technology and experience during the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries.
I suppose I should have been more specific in the OP. It should be assumed that the bulk or at least half of the Samurai force is ahigaru, the remaining soldiers being samurai of various rank, status and equipment.
plenka
Banned
People often forget that the main weapon of the samurai was bow, which was used mainly on horseback, and spear. Sword was a weapon of last resort, when everything else failed, well take out your sword, and get in a few hits before they kill you. Their armor was at best lamellar, and really could not compare with the armour usually worn on European battlefields. And lastly we are talking about landsknecht mercenaries, the people who defeated Swiss mercenaries. Few samurai, and ashigaru peasant soldiers will not be able to seriously threaten, let alone defeat Landsknecht. Samurai, and katanas are overhyped. You want to see a proper sword? Look at Spanish steel or even Viking swords, that is nice and proper piece of metal.
If you havent realized it yet, I really hate overhyping something or someone.
Ahem, sorry about that...
About cannons, I am really not certain that Japan used Gunpowder artillery at all before openning up to the West in the 19th century. As for the European force, well, It is the middle of the 16th century, you could expect some minor artillery pieces mounted on trunions and limbers.
If you havent realized it yet, I really hate overhyping something or someone.
Ahem, sorry about that...
About cannons, I am really not certain that Japan used Gunpowder artillery at all before openning up to the West in the 19th century. As for the European force, well, It is the middle of the 16th century, you could expect some minor artillery pieces mounted on trunions and limbers.
Last edited:
fred1451
Banned
3 lbs? 6lbs? Had they come up with Grape yet, or was is still just solid shot, or were they still using rocks?People often forget that the main weapon of the samurai was bow, which was used mainly on horseback, and spear. Sword was a weapon of last resort, when everything else failed, well take out your sword, and get in a few hits before they kill you. Their armor was at best lamellar, and really could not compare with the armour usually worn on European battlefields. And lastly we are talking about landsknecht mercenaries, the people who defeated Swiss mercenaries. Few samurai, and ashigaru peasant soldiers will not be able to seriously threaten, let alone defeat Landsknecht. Samurai, and katanas are overhyped. You want to see a proper sword? Look at Spanish steel or even Viking swords, that is nice and proper piece of metal.
If you havent realized it yet, I really hate overhyping something or someone.
Ahem, sorry about that...
About cannons, I am really not certain that Japan used Gunpowder artillery at all before openning up to the West in the 19th century. As for the European force, well, It is the middle of the 16th century, you could expect some minor artillery pieces mounted on trunions and limbers.
Delvestius
Banned
The standard middle-to-late landsknecht armor was a helmet and steel chest piece. Good, but lacking in overall protection, which is why the pike block formation was so important to maintain.
Despite common misconception, boiled leather was very durable and quite effective in defending from glancing blows, which most blows in a lengthened combat tend to become.
You are right in that most ashigaru wielded the spear (yari), but wrong in that Samurai generally preferred a weapon besides the sword on the battlefield, unless they were mounted in which case a bow or spear was preferred. Sure some may have preferred a spear or glaive, but to the Samurai, the sword was the sacred, ancestral tool of war.
Going back to the pike block, the sword is precisely the weapon that should be used to counter the formation. In fact it was the sword-wielding line of Spanish Tercios that were used to dispatch the Swiss pike formations, and the role of the Landsknecht Zweihander-armed Doppelsoldner himself - to "beat away" the enemy pikes, leaving them vulnerable to attack.
If you want to talk about experience, there would have been many battle-hardened daimyo with experienced retinues of soldiers. When people think "ashigaru" they immediately think "peasant conscript," which was certainly the case much of the time. However, many ashigaru were the sons or grandsons of those who were originally drafted, and were themselves raised as a warrior sans Samurai status and hardened by the almost non-stop warfare during Sengoku Jidai. Ashigaru was placed in the peasant class whether they actually were or not until the separation edict of 1591 made all current ashigaru apart of the samurai class, and forbade all peasants from carrying arms that point on.
Samurai armies could very well of had the same level of experience and pedigree as a Landsknecht company.
That is your opinion sir. I like all types of swords, I will say I am biased to the Katana but true Ulfbehrt swords are masterpieces indeed.
At some point the technology and tactics of Samurai outpower that of the waning Landsknechts, and I'm trying to find a reasonable hypothetical date in which the general effectiveness of the forces are equal.
The Japanese did make indigenous rock cannons after introduced to gunpowder, with limited effectiveness in anything but light siege support and used to intimidate the approaching enemy.
Grape shot was a seventeenth century invention, I believe. It was originally a naval tactic and was really only adopted by land armies in the eighteenth century.
Last edited:
Pretty big guns, mainly cast bronze, though at that point also hoop-and-stave forged ones. And they had definitely figured out grapeshot. Landsknecht armies travelled with a large artillery park, though it is questionable how much of an impact it made in actual battle.
Considering the OP's question, I am not as sure as others of the ouitcome. Landsknechts were formidable fighters, but they were not terribly good soldiers. Their armies were famous for poor organisation, logistical problems, and rampant indiscipline. All accounts I have read of sixteenth-century Japanese armies indicate that discipline, logistics, and politics were highly developed and valued. That alone may allow a Japanese army to outclass a landsknecht one.