Well, most historians don't consider the medieval period "ancient". The generally accepted end point of ancient times is the beginning of the Middle Ages.
Which is why it's called the Middle Ages. It's the period between ancient times and the modern period.
Okay, fair enough
with the OP's lack of specification in their usage of terminology, and the lack of capitalisation, I was taking it as representative, rather than a specific referenced time period.
Crecy, Poitiers, and Agincourt during the Hundred Years War. Notably at Agincourt, The English slaughtered a numerically superior army of mounted French knights utilizing primarily the longbow. I seriously doubt the Samurai would fair much better.
You're missing, well, a hell of a lot to make such a statement. For one thing, the usage of archers, particularly long-bows, was a fair point of difference for the English
most of Europe considered the usage of bows and arrows to be cowardly ways of fighting for the elite
which, when utilised well, can show up as a major advantage (such as Agincourt
which, to be frank, the English should never have won)
however, in Japan, archery was the order of the day
in fact, not just archery, but mounted archery
which would give them an advantage over the English longbowmen
Japanese armour was designed specifically to protect against arrows
Again, you might be putting too much stock in variables you're not fully cognisant of
In terms of siege warfare, Europeans were using cannons by the end of the 16th century (towards the end of the Sengoku period in Japan, and before the establishment of the Tokugawa Shogunate).
At which point Japan had more guns in use and production that all of Europe, you realise
including forms of cannons
not so much the European format
mainly as the requirements for cannons to be effective wasn't really a major practicality for Japanese warfare, on a number of levels.
This, on top of centuries of experience utilizing siege warfare from the fall of Rome, to the Crusades, and all the way up to the Hundred Year's war made Europeans pretty darn good at siege tactics. I seriously doubt Japanese castles and fortifications were any stronger than European castles and fortifications.
Ah, son, you're making assumptions based on a lack of knowledge
and looking at exactly the wrong thing
there's no idea of "stronger" fortifications
but the entire structure and set up means that the siege tactics of Europe would have had little to no effect.
The longbow, and siege tech is a pretty considerable advantage. Especially when you have example of that technology working in similar situations to the hypothetical in the OP. I would say that things would be equal to almost swinging in the favor of the Japanese from about 1100 to about 1400. However after that point, technological advancements and competition from rival nations places the English ahead comfortably. By the late 1500s, it really isn't a contest.
The Japanese were specialist mounted archers
no advantage to your English longbow
the siege tactics are not applicable to Japanese castles
no advantage
and the Japanese were actually pretty solid on siege warfare (appropriate to their needs) themselves
again, no advantage
As far as your estimations of timeline and development, I really see no support for any of your contentions whatsoever
especially the idea of "it really isn't a contest" by the late 1500's
a time when Japan had been in non-stop war for longer than all of Europe, were producing more guns than all of Europe, and were successfully invading/engaging in campaigns in other countries.
So seriously
what?
Samurai and Medieval Knights are pretty contemporary. Both entering their heydays from 1100 to about 1600 AD. In Europe the knights became obsolete by new weaponry (Longbows, firearms). In Japan, the Samurai didn't really become obsolete until the Meiji period (mid 1800s).
"Obsolete"? Hmm
not quite the way I'd put it
Either way, the medieval English simply have access to better military technology than the Japanese due to their near constant warfare with continental Europe throughout the Middle Ages. That gives them an edge across the board. As I said before, their level of equality in military terms comes to a dramatic end around 1400, and that's being generous.
No, the medieval English do not have access to better military technology, son. If you think they do, back it up. What did they have that was better technology than the Japanese?
Your presumptions of equality, frankly, don't seem based in anything other than a lack of understanding and knowledge in this area, mate.
Along with the Crusades, England was constantly fighting France and other European countries pretty consistently from the 1000s all the way up to the modern day.
List of wars involving England - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
That's pretty consistent continental warfare for the last 1000 years. I agree with your viewpoint prior to the Norman invasion. However after 1066, you have England engaged in a war across the channel pretty consistently.
Way more than Japan's foreign engagements prior to the Meiji restoration in the 19th century;
List of wars involving Japan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You do see how that wiki article on "wars involving Japan" starts by pointing out that it's "incomplete", yeah? It's a list of some of the major points along the list, but it's really missing the majority
as it was all internal
more along the lines of the Italian city-states being at war with each other than the idea of England vs France
but the wiki list misses over the Sengoku Jidai entirely
giving only a couple of events a listing
it's simply not exhaustive enough to be considered even relevant if you're using it to look at the amount of wars seen. It's missing probably 90% of the list.
