|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Nov 24, 2006 20:22:15 GMT 3
No, they have the Hwarang.
|
|
|
Post by Temüjin on Nov 24, 2006 23:07:37 GMT 3
well koreans did beat mongols! no, they just ressisted in some sieges, but they never won a pitched battle against them. anyways, it was the same with Samurai, but eventually Korea submitted to the Mongol Empire but it never submitted to the Japanese and eventually defeated them.
|
|
|
Post by temur on Jan 25, 2007 15:25:29 GMT 3
Samurai is no match to Mongol Warrior. Some peoples mistakenly thought that Mongol army was defeated by Samurai in Kubilai Khan's year( Yuan dynasty) But they didn't know that that army was mainly assembled by Chinese and Korean and the whole fleet was destroyed by Hurricane rather than by Samurais. If that army of 100,000 strong had landed safely, Japan would be crashed within 2 months. Secondly, the essence of Japanese imperial Kuan tong army was defeated by Mongol army led by Soviet generals in 1920s. The defeat was a big frustration for Japanese, and they never touched the soil of Mongol as a result of it.
|
|
|
Post by Atabeg on Jan 25, 2007 15:35:28 GMT 3
Yes thank you temur for pointing out what we all allready knew.
We aren't speaking of a full scale millitary campain. No body was match for the mongols and there Nomad army(well exept the Mamelukes but who also originaly were of the same stocks as the Kipchak soldiers)
we are talking about a man 2 man fight.
If the warrior could keep the samurai and distance no fight he would be just a target. If the steppe warrior could keep the fight mounted I say there would be a 70-30% chance for the steppe warrior.
but dismounted I would say 70-30% for the samurai
|
|
|
Post by temur on Jan 25, 2007 17:42:43 GMT 3
I didn't digress from the essence of your subject. Japanese samurai is no match to Mongol warrior whether he dismount or not. But we have to admit that they are good at hand to hand fighting and playing bayonet. The war between Mongolia and Japan is a modern war. In fact, cavalry was rarely used, nevertheless, hand to hand fighting was commonly seen in the battlfield. And result was obvious that Japanese army was humiliated. Yes thank you temur for pointing out what we all allready knew. We aren't speaking of a full scale millitary campain. No body was match for the mongols and there Nomad army(well exept the Mamelukes but who also originaly were of the same stocks as the Kipchak soldiers) we are talking about a man 2 man fight. If the warrior could keep the samurai and distance no fight he would be just a target. If the steppe warrior could keep the fight mounted I say there would be a 70-30% chance for the steppe warrior. but dismounted I would say 70-30% for the samurai
|
|
|
Post by temur on Jan 26, 2007 13:51:35 GMT 3
Plus, if compare with Chinese martial fighting skill, and Thai boxing, Samurai is really nothing. One year ago, I saw the international competition between Chinese martial skill and Japanese Samurai. Both sides showed off their best players, and outcome is a diaster to Japanese side. 6-0 98Kg 's Champion is my countryman(Mongol) whose name is Geri letu. He come from Horqing grassland in inner Mongolia. We are proud of him, and describe him as a Hawk of great grassland.
|
|
|
Post by Azadan Januspar on Mar 23, 2008 1:28:26 GMT 3
taking the failed mongol invasion of japan and not including mongol use of korean infantries it seems that the Samurai's are better.
|
|
|
Post by Temüjin on Mar 31, 2008 21:13:38 GMT 3
there was never a real pitched battle bewteen Mongols & japanese, even the Japanese invasion scrolls show the Mongols & their allies mostly as infantry. besides, Mongols were powerful enough to invade japan, Japanese were not powerful enough to invade Mongolia. and when they tried in the 16th century they were defeated in Korea.
|
|
|
Post by Subu'atai on Apr 6, 2008 17:50:19 GMT 3
I've always had great respect for the Samurai, they were as fearless as Mongol warriors, but their courage came from the absense of fear, not the overcoming of it - they fought to die gloriously in honor. It's a tough call, and it's impossible to gauge individual effectiveness dismounted. Though Mongols have always been physically supreme in battle, the obvious example would be the 150-pound bows in comparison to the 70-80 pound japanese bows. Of course one can argue 'the Japanese did not focus on marksmanship', but it bears serious consideration.
|
|
|
Post by sarmat on Apr 13, 2008 5:00:00 GMT 3
there was never a real pitched battle bewteen Mongols & japanese, even the Japanese invasion scrolls show the Mongols & their allies mostly as infantry. besides, Mongols were powerful enough to invade japan, Japanese were not powerful enough to invade Mongolia. and when they tried in the 16th century they were defeated in Korea. There was a small battle during the first invasion of Kuyshu. Japanese were very quickly and hopelessly smashed.
|
|
|
Post by Temüjin on Apr 13, 2008 23:57:56 GMT 3
yeah, second time around the japanese had already built a wall and there was no pitched battle. the first invasion actually was more of a raid and it was more intended on probing on the Japanese ressistance that could be expected, rather than a real invasion attempt. thats why the Mognosl didn't capitalized on their victory, but pro-samurai writers always ignore this.
|
|
Attila
Är
History Enthusiast
Posts: 48
|
Post by Attila on Feb 5, 2009 12:37:55 GMT 3
Assuming the Steppe warrior (in this case a Mongol?) were mounted on a horse and had a bow and arrows, he could easily try to shoot down the Samurai. In close combat however, assuming the warrior had a sabre and some armour, he may be able to defeat his opponent that way too, but the Japanese katana was designed with cutting in mind, and maybe his chances wouldn't be so great. It would probably be a relatively easy match on foot between the two, but if the nomad were on horseback and firing arrows, he would most likely defeat his adversary.
|
|
|
Post by hjernespiser on Feb 5, 2009 18:53:37 GMT 3
Easily? I disagree. Samurai wore a kind of kite on their backs when riding. It was used to catch arrows. They also had that iron armor, underneath which they wore silk, which presumably makes it easier to remove an arrow from a wound.
|
|
|
Post by tadamson on Feb 6, 2009 19:18:33 GMT 3
At the time of the Mongol invasions, most samurai would have less armour than most Mongols.
Of course the invasion armies were predominantly Chinese and Korean soldiers.
|
|
Attila
Är
History Enthusiast
Posts: 48
|
Post by Attila on Feb 12, 2009 9:40:59 GMT 3
At the time of the Mongol invasions, most samurai would have less armour than most Mongols. Of course the invasion armies were predominantly Chinese and Korean soldiers. Then how many of the Khan's soldiers were actually Mongolians? Is there a known percentage or number of Mongols verses other groups participating in the invasion of Japan?
|
|