Tong said: I kinda dont like how ninjas are represented as "elite" and the samurai just as footsoldiers/generic random in general.
I'd imagine that this would be that Ninjas were assassins or, I guess a better term, would be mercenaries used by political factions, including samurai, to go against others. There might be a case of a ninja sent to kill a samurai so given how anime logic works, the ninja would have to be a lot stronger.
Or rule of cool, like they said. I found that Ninjas, in real-life, were more interesting but for different reasons.
NuclearArbitor said: samurai are knights, not a political faction, and were present in numbers and roles similar to knights
Samurai weren't a political faction? They weren't knights, since knights are unique to Europe as Samurais are to Japan. My understand is that Samurai was a class, and while they were a minority, existed in a period where there isn't the separation between military and politics, which is a common view within the United States.
Knights and Samurai were both recruited (essentially, but not the best term) from the upper ranking nobility, they are somthing of their own group, but still exist as part of the nobility. Later as military tactics, strategy, and technology progressed the idea of the common "footman" became more prevalent and "samurai" and "knights" became less vital and common on the battlefield though still maintained a high social standing
Giant+Robot said: Knights and Samurai were both recruited (essentially, but not the best term) from the upper ranking nobility, they are somthing of their own group, but still exist as part of the nobility. Later as military tactics, strategy, and technology progressed the idea of the common "footman" became more prevalent and "samurai" and "knights" became less vital and common on the battlefield though still maintained a high social standing
They were a part of the nobility but the nobility was made up of different chastes and levels.
Knights were eventually replaced because of gunpowder technology mainly, and the ease it took to train and arm unskilled soldiers, so they were too expensive to maintain, too costly to lose, and to limited to be of any value.
But Samurais lasted a lot longer than Knights and the "Bushido" code, as many liberties Ultra-nationalism took with it, was followed during World War II (although part of it was that if a soldier was captured, and not killed, his family did not receive compensation).
in Europe knights became obsolete with the longbow; a group of conscripts with the longbows they used for hunting could destroy a cavalry charge before the knights manage to do anything. japan didn't have longbows so samurai didn't have that particular issue.
NuclearArbitor said: in Europe knights became obsolete with the longbow.
The longbow as the bane of knights is probably a myth based on over-romantic views of Agincourt and Crecy. Given the English field advantages, they could have used any sort of decent missile and pulled it off. At Patay, where the longbowmen didn't hold field advantage, they were massacred by cavalry. The pike-and-shot, however, can still cut down an armored charge of gendarmes with decently trained peasant militia.
Samurai were a distinct class of armed nobility. High-ranking ones were lords or held office, but I'd guess your ordinary soldier samurai probably wasn't so glamorous. Ninja -- being intelligence operatives -- might hold a bit more mystique.
