The subject came up somewhat recently in the political forums, when someone was saying that the Japanese were so far advanced over Europeans and so, skipping over the Romans, Greeks, and Byzantines (Greek children), I pointed out that the Gauls developed riveted chainmail, wheras 2000 years later the Japanese were still using butted chainmail, and the Vikings developed a sword of such high quality and pure steel that that quality of steel wasn't made again until the 19th century. So, who was more advanced? The Gauls vs. Japanese, and the Vikings v. Japanese? Also, feel free to open it up to wider range of Europeans v. Asians.
I would take the Japanese anytime. But with the caveat that we need to know are the Japanese troops early or middle period?
I think it's generally fair to make it as comparative as possible, but since the Gauls lost their independence around 40BC, you could compare the Gauls under Vercingeterox to early Japanese. Alternatively, comparing Vikings I think would be pretty fair to any period of Japanese, but that's because I think the Vikings, at least in terms of military technology, outbeat the Japanese until the Japanese westernized. I've mentioned riveted chainmail as a key point. What examples would you use to argue the case of the Japanese?
I asked what period of the Japanese because they moved from a loose order army to much tighter units. In the case of the Gauls they middle period would do better, while I feel the early period formations would do well against the Vikings. The reality is the quality of the general would have a higher than normal impact. Japanese were historically impatient warriors, with both the Gauls and Vikings you had to time your attacks carefully. The Japanese may also have an edge in their ability to reform and regroup after initial charges
mhmm. The Gallic was more about the shock value than anything. The Gauls often went into battle with painted bodies, but this isn't because they lacked armor. The Gauls actually made what I think for it's time was greatest military development, riveted chainmail. " You're probably familiar, but the first is riveted chainmail, the second is butted, which the Japanese used until they westernized. The extreme advantages of the Gallic riveted chainmail are inherent. While both were effective against slashing weapons, namely the sword, the butted chainmail could be very easily pierced by an arrow, spear, or sword tip. As displayed below a very direct, very powerful blow from a very pointy weapon (<-- excuse the academic speak) barely penetrates riveted chainmail, if at all. This would have given the Gallic warriors a huge advantage over just about any period Japanese, as even the Samurai had inferior armor. That being said, I'd give the Vikings the edge over the Japanese any day. The Vikings had riveted mail, again an armor advantage. From my understanding, the mainstay of Japanese armies used spears two handed, and then it makes a big difference who is attacking. When you get into tactics, there's a whole plethora of considerations to be made, but as far as technology goes, I'd give the edge to the Vikings any day.
Unfortunately it comes down to a lot more than who has the best armor. While the Vikings are trying to get close enough to actually hit a Japanese solider, the Japanese cavalry has turned their flanks created a double envelopment and organizing the first course in human sushi
I'd say the viking and gauls. We're not speaking only about military tech are we? I think that vikings were ahead in general terms as well. I'm not too familiar with either viking or japanese history though I'm afraid but I can say that the viking longboats, their way of navigating, their expansive trade routes, their awesome steel (nice documentary troianii, about the swords) and high quality armor and weapons, are definitively something. It's also worth noting that most things which are believed to be superior in the mainstream mind (id est kewl japanese ninja samurais which follow the secret and honourable way blablbabla) are often exaggerated, and that early europeans, with the exception of rome and greece, are often seen as naked stinky barbarians running with inferior weaponry and living in a generally inferior society. I've read about just that; and it's certainly not true. Especially not when it comes to the celts.
I am just not seeing it. Japanese bow and cavalry would really carry the day. The biggest problem debates like this suffer is potential adaptability. The Vikings never ran into an army as flexible and mobile as the Samurai. The Samurai never encounter a force dominated by good heavy infantry
I really think the samurais are over estimated. They were ligthly clad and their fighting was ceremonial and a ritual in many ways. The vikings had encountered bows and cavalry before, heavier than what the japanese had. Japanese cavalry wasn't heavy at all iirc, compared to the european cavalry the vikings might have faced sometimes. I think that the vikings, by virtue of encountering many cultures and winng over them and/or being prized as mercenaries, speaks for itself in contrast with the japanese who didn't have anyone but themselves to fight and thus weren't too prepeared on different things. Id est, japanese things mght look cool but it was never tested as the vikings were.
There was a half decent tv show a little while back that looked at matching warriors from different eras and armies that never historically met. In hand to hand combat the Vikings would have the advantage and odds are would win the vast majority of encounters. Where the Japanese fighters would do well is in there bow technology and their cavalry. Asian cavalry was trained very differently from their European counterparts and played a very different role. For example until the English civil war the idea of cavalry being able to reform and present for another charge was largely unheard of. Basically Asian forces used their cavalry to force the enemy infantry to react to their presence rather than be engaged by them. The Mongols for instance turned this into a high art and really only had one tactic, the envelopment
There is more than one form of advancement and I think it's interesting that you've all focused exclusively on open warfare. I'm no expert but from what I do know, I'd only say the cultures were vastly different and could each be considered more advanced than the others in different fields. As has already been hinted at, they also all suffered various "dips", periods where advancement in some areas could be said to have slowed or even reversed. Each would certainly fail if they were simply dropped in the environment of the other and how they'd each adapt is anyone's guess. Probably better than we'd imagine or indeed better than any of us would, which says something else about "advancement" I guess.
