One thing, which we wod not necessitate with the WesternWarrior/Soldier, if the/his immersion of self in the Unit into, than in in Armies of the Easrt.
I am speaking of a specific period of time.
The is not to say Eastern armies of the 19th century were 'primitive" i any case, although they were playing indusdrial and organizational catchup with the Armies of the West.
In the Boxer Rebellion, just as an example, a practiced Chinese Swordswan would, more like that not, make short work of his lightly armed and armored oppostion ( a lighthy armed )-but on to find himself quickly bayoneted by the 'opposition's.' rear rankers.
But still, Western units fought better because they fought as unit.
It's hard to say way why I feel this way, and, of, course, China and Japan did sucessfully follow and inmprove upon Western Militarty methods.
I would like some one to chime in and discuss the effect the submegance of the invidiual warrior imto the unit.
Spartans admonished their sons to come back with thier shields and not on them, but the same said parents would likewise be unhappy with their soldier returning with sword, and a captured sword, because it was the shield that proctected his fellows in the line, and not the caotured sword,
This is where difeences between the west and east get fuzzy.
Hopefully we can digest and ubderstands the mindset of the rank and fike od eat ans west.