Samurai vs Roman Soldier Options

[Luca (Oranda-Jin...]

lets go on with Roman Vs Samurai (srry for this incident)

[flipcombatmedic]

^no offense dawg, but put all your idea in one post, try avoiding posting double.

[warder]

The lack of knowledge on this thread is just baffling. First of all get your classical cultures right. The Greeks are different than the Romans. Romans came after the Greeks. The Romans defeated the Greeks. Greeks fought mainly against other Greeks, while Roman fought mainly against Barbarians. Now that we got that out of the way, you can’t really compare Samurai with a Roman soldier. If you want to compare you should compare Samurai with Roman gladiator. The Roman soldiers fight best in groups. What makes the Roman soldiers different from the Barbarians is discipline. Mentality between a Samurai and a Roman soldier is very different. Samurai wants personal glory; a chance for him to prove his worth to the lord. The Roman soldier is fighting for the army and his country. He is fighting not for his own glory but for the glory of the Rome. On a battle field in Japan fighting is mainly done by the foot soldiers not the Samurai. There is no Samurai army. Samurai sometimes lead the foot soldier but most of the time they protect the lord and his property. So I think if you compare Roman soldier at the peak of Roman civilization against Samurai warrior at the peak of Japanese civilization Roman soldier will come out on top. If you guys are unsatisfied with my explanation I can also explain using technology at the time why the Roman soldier will win against the Samurai warrior.

[mr_boogie]

ey you don't know what a "gebakken aardappel" is so 34uck you and yo bleach!

yo, dawg, don't test my dutch knowledge, I don't live that far away.... and I do like gebakken aardappel met champignons....

Anyway, Bleach is an anime which deals with Shinigamis....
Bleach

This post has been edited by mr_boogie: Mar 3 2005, 02:25 PM

[Rad Raz]

The lack of knowledge on this thread is just baffling. First of all get your classical cultures right. The Greeks are different than the Romans. Romans came after the Greeks. The Romans defeated the Greeks. Greeks fought mainly against other Greeks, while Roman fought mainly against Barbarians. Now that we got that out of the way, you can’t really compare Samurai with a Roman soldier. If you want to compare you should compare Samurai with Roman gladiator. The Roman soldiers fight best in groups. What makes the Roman soldiers different from the Barbarians is discipline. Mentality between a Samurai and a Roman soldier is very different. Samurai wants personal glory; a chance for him to prove his worth to the lord. The Roman soldier is fighting for the army and his country. He is fighting not for his own glory but for the glory of the Rome. On a battle field in Japan fighting is mainly done by the foot soldiers not the Samurai. There is no Samurai army. Samurai sometimes lead the foot soldier but most of the time they protect the lord and his property. So I think if you compare Roman soldier at the peak of Roman civilization against Samurai warrior at the peak of Japanese civilization Roman soldier will come out on top. If you guys are unsatisfied with my explanation I can also explain using technology at the time why the Roman soldier will win against the Samurai warrior.

Well said, I think you have enlightened some of these samurai crazy fools in this thread.

[mr_boogie]

Shinigamis win....

[EvilAsianDude]

China did have gunpowder weapons but they lacked the organization, intelligence and maneuverability of the Mongols. Which explains why the Mongols were able to beat the Chinese when they were vastly outnumbered. The Mongols were also far superior horsemen then the Chinese. In fact most Chinese fighters fought on foot because of their overwhelming numbers.

Also there is no way in hell a standard Roman legionnaire can beat a samurai or Mongol(whos superior to the samurai).

The standard Roman legionnaire was equipped with a pilum(throwing spear one one shot), shield which I believe is called a pavise and a gladius(stabbing short sword) which was his main killing weapon. They also faught on foot and maneuvered by walking. Their plate armor also wasn’t the best type of armor to run in.

A samurai however fought with yari(long spear), standard swords and of course a bow. Now, I know that Romans are tough but they cant run as fast as a horse nor is the pilum the most accurate of weapons. In fact its less accurate than the samurais bow, has only one shot and cant be fired at long distances because of its weight+having to throw it rather than shoot it. Of course im only talking about melee swords and bow weaponry and not guns(which the samurais did in fact use when attempting to invade korea during the 1590s). Guns are unfair since romans didn’t have them.

Anyways the simple fact that the samurai has a horse giving him speed and maneuverability advantage+ armed with a bow on horse back is evidence enough that the samurai will win. What exactly can the roman do? Try chasing the horse on foot? Also a spear charge will pierce the romans shields rather easily. And lets just say we give the roman a horse to be fair. What then? The roman will charge the samurai with his short sword while the samurai fires arrows while backing off? Roman loses. Or if the Roman decides to charge then the samurai just pulls his yari forward and charges as well. Short sword vs. long spear is a mismatch when it comes to cavalry charge.

Contrary to popular belief samurais preferred fighting from a distance with bows rather than going sword to sword. The same is true with Korean and Mongolian warriors. Difference was that the others used stronger bows than the samurai and probably had much more training on average than the samurais.

In conclusion a roman warrior will lose very badly in a one on one match. Very badly.

[mr_boogie]

the portuguese ended up with the samurai.... so mediterranean race won...

[Kalee Flavour]

"China did have gunpowder weapons but they lacked the organization, intelligence and maneuverability of the Mongols. Which explains why the Mongols were able to beat the Chinese when they were vastly outnumbered. The Mongols were also far superior horsemen then the Chinese. In fact most Chinese fighters fought on foot because of their overwhelming numbers."

Dude, in that time China was splitted in 3 groups, so there wasn't a real one China. That's one of the reason why China lost to the Mongols. And offcourse those Mongols where master horseman and great with there bows. They proberly crushed the Japanese army, if it wasn't the Tsunami who save them.

The Mongols maybe invaded China once but don't forget how many times China have beat them. They have figthing each other for like 4000 years. And each dynasty ends when it's weak. And when a dynasty is weak you can destroy it. No dynasties are for ever.

Sorry this is off topic but just needed to respond.

[UrbanPoet]

The lack of knowledge on this thread is just baffling. First of all get your classical cultures right. The Greeks are different than the Romans. Romans came after the Greeks. The Romans defeated the Greeks. Greeks fought mainly against other Greeks, while Roman fought mainly against Barbarians. Now that we got that out of the way, you can’t really compare Samurai with a Roman soldier. If you want to compare you should compare Samurai with Roman gladiator. The Roman soldiers fight best in groups. What makes the Roman soldiers different from the Barbarians is discipline. Mentality between a Samurai and a Roman soldier is very different. Samurai wants personal glory; a chance for him to prove his worth to the lord. The Roman soldier is fighting for the army and his country. He is fighting not for his own glory but for the glory of the Rome. On a battle field in Japan fighting is mainly done by the foot soldiers not the Samurai. There is no Samurai army. Samurai sometimes lead the foot soldier but most of the time they protect the lord and his property. So I think if you compare Roman soldier at the peak of Roman civilization against Samurai warrior at the peak of Japanese civilization Roman soldier will come out on top. If you guys are unsatisfied with my explanation I can also explain using technology at the time why the Roman soldier will win against the Samurai warrior.

haha thats true....
Them Spartans were Crazy tho... abattle culture.
Im sure a single 1on1 with a greek Spartan and Samurai would come out with a sPartan as a winner.

They were Raised to FIGHT... kinda scary how they socialized the brutality of fighting onto these kids

[onepairofpant]

werent samurai raised to fight too?

[flipcombatmedic]

werent samurai raised to fight too?

raised in the culture/ideals of a militant confucian society, but practical training does not occur until certain years of age.

the difference with Spartans were they were taken by a totally militaristic state -society to be train day in and day out to be "warriors" which they live in for the rest of their lives.

[Kalee Flavour]

Yes indeed those Spartans are really creul. They already learn to survive at a very age. One of there training mission was to kill other young Spartans(comrade) to proof they deserves to survive.

This was a way to select the strongest at a very young age.

[Rad Raz]

Spartans first observe the babies that are just born. They will come to a conclusion wether or not if the baby will grow up as a strong/weak male. If they conlcude that the baby will grow as a weak male, then they will kill that baby.

By the way, this was the law in Sparda.

[Mr. Tree]

you all do know that Samurai are kinda overrated...not to bag em or anything but fact is the majority were just simply soldiers, only a very few were actually 'masters' or legends whatever, so this thread is kinda stoopid....

[aynn]

Mongols>all

[doozer3]

"China did have gunpowder weapons but they lacked the organization, intelligence and maneuverability of the Mongols. Which explains why the Mongols were able to beat the Chinese when they were vastly outnumbered. The Mongols were also far superior horsemen then the Chinese. In fact most Chinese fighters fought on foot because of their overwhelming numbers."

Dude, in that time China was splitted in 3 groups, so there wasn't a real one China. That's one of the reason why China lost to the Mongols. And offcourse those Mongols where master horseman and great with there bows. They proberly crushed the Japanese army, if it wasn't the Tsunami who save them.

The Mongols maybe invaded China once but don't forget how many times China have beat them. They have figthing each other for like 4000 years. And each dynasty ends when it's weak. And when a dynasty is weak you can destroy it. No dynasties are for ever. 

Sorry this is off topic but just needed to respond.

Still, while losing to the Mongols is hardly shameful - the Chinese, even with the split had a HUGE population advantage - est. to be around 100-120 million, while the Mongols probably never numbered more than 300K.

The Mongols were the ones to introduce gunpowder weapons to the Europeans in the late 1200s.

[doozer3]

Yes indeed those Spartans are really creul. They already learn to survive at a very age. One of there training mission was to kill other young Spartans(comrade) to proof they deserves to survive.

This was a way to select the strongest at a very young age.

The Spartans also had institutionalized homosexuality (not that there's anything wrong with that - the gay part, not the institutionalized part).

[warder]

Yes indeed those Spartans are really creul. They already learn to survive at a very age. One of there training mission was to kill other young Spartans(comrade) to proof they deserves to survive.

This was a way to select the strongest at a very young age.

The Spartans also had institutionalized homosexuality (not that there's anything wrong with that - the gay part, not the institutionalized part).

The only job of a male Spartan citizen is to be in the army. Everything else was done by the slaves. Spartan male gets married and comes in to the bed chamber at night when his wife is asleep, have sex and then leaves. Some Spartan female has never seemed their husband in the day light their entire life. Spartan male live their entire adult lives in the barracks with other soldiers. They do nothing but train every single day.

[Luca (Oranda-Jin...]

Best medieval soldier has to be a spartan, the were trained from an age of 4-5 and were made to accept harsh conditions (that why a spartan decoration of a room is when there is nothing unneccesary)