Samurai vs Roman Soldier Options

[kimbongnam]

best soldier our of all asians must be mongol, serving time for each man was from
16yr old until 60 and they never get paid!!

This post has been edited by kimbongnam: Mar 10 2005, 12:08 PM

[UrbanPoet]

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.

the spartans were allowed to marry... and they were encouraged to go home to their wives once and a while to have sex with them. But they made teh women dress up as men so they wouldnt feel to unattached from the 'gayness' which was topromote a brother like bond.

The strange part of this is that since the wives never saw their men... they basically ran the city :O
altho it was a rigid society, they could stay back in the city and run businesses like markets and prepare things like clothing, food, and houses. Since they had alot of time many of the women participated in Gyms which was quite popular in that 'warrior culture'. So many of the spartan women were very fit and beautiful with amazing bodies. In many ancient plays there are quotes from women that show their envy of the spartan women.

Because the men were gone for so long, the women would sometimes resort to lesbian activity....

[onepairofpant]

(IMG:http://img72.exs.cx/img72/2130/20050303japanesearmy0rk.jpg)

this is an artists rendition of the mighty samurai fighting the roman warriors and the mighty samurai is clearly victor

[flipcombatmedic]

^looks like a video game.

is it the RTW mod with the Japanese?

[gesturer]

Samurai = Horseback + arrows
Therefore
Samurai > roman legions.

You would have to have no visualization skills whatsoever to see that the Samurai on horseback would have his way with the roman legions. Even vastly outnumbered, the Samurai would win.

The debate is quite simple.

[Kalee Flavour]

Samurai = Horseback + arrows
Therefore
Samurai > roman legions.

You would have to have no visualization skills whatsoever to see that the Samurai on horseback would have his way with the roman legions. Even vastly outnumbered, the Samurai would win.

The debate is quite simple.

Are you sure, samurai on horseback+ arrows, was the japanese main army? Not foot soldiers.

The only horseback master + arrows I have heard of where mongolian soldiers. Each mongolian warrior use to have 2 horses.

[Luca (Oranda-Jin...]

best soldier our of all asians must be mongol, serving time for each man was from
16yr old until 60 and they never get paid!!

So why does this make them good?
Just a bunch of frighten kids and grampas (IMG:http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/thumbsdown.gif)

[flipcombatmedic]

best soldier our of all asians must be mongol, serving time for each man was from
16yr old until 60 and they never get paid!!

So why does this make them good?
Just a bunch of frighten kids and grampas (IMG:http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/thumbsdown.gif)

you did know that despite being the most "uncivilized" they carved the biggest empire in teh world right? with the use of horse archers mostly.

[ScanSoul]

Samurai = Horseback + arrows
Therefore
Samurai > roman legions.

You would have to have no visualization skills whatsoever to see that the Samurai on horseback would have his way with the roman legions. Even vastly outnumbered, the Samurai would win.

The debate is quite simple.

samurais were foot-based soldiers(actually not real soldiers)
the horse riders were mongols,manchus,xiongnu(huns),tujue(turks) and etc.....

[EvilAsianDude]

Are you sure, samurai on horseback+ arrows, was the japanese main army? Not foot soldiers.

The only horseback master + arrows I have heard of where mongolian soldiers. Each mongolian warrior use to have 2 horses.

What does this have to do with anything. This topic is about samurai vs. roman legionnaire not samurai + peasant soldiers vs. Roman Legionnaire. Of course the common peasant soldier isn’t going to have a horse nor is he/she going to have expensive high class swords. Theyd probably be armed with cheaper weapons like spears.

And Scan Soul your wrong. Most Japanese movies and especially cartoons like to depict samurais during war as lone swordsman who charged the opponent while hacking at them with their sword. The truth however was that the samurais viewed the sword as a secondary weapon while the bow was preferred. And if you clearly look at what the samurais carried to war you’ll find that they don’t carry shields. They carry fantastic swords but no shield that I know of. You wont last long on foot if your armed only with a sword vs. an army that’s hailing arrows at you. The Japanese wernt stupid, instead the standard tactic was actually horseback archers. The Mongols used it, the Koreans used it and so did the Japanese. In Mongol society the bow is the legendary weapon. The Koreans win just about every gold medal in archery available, and in Japan the sword is legendary. The reason being that during WW1 and WW2 swords could be mass produced so that even the common soldier during war could possess one(which really boosted moral). Then theres also those cartoons where the main character uses fancy magic techniques with his sword.

And judging by the fact that horseback archers were vastly superior to just about any army during the sword, spear etc age I can say that the Japanese easilly defeat the roman legionarre. The Crusaders(Europes best warriors at the time) who had experience fighting Muslims in the Crusades did poorly against the mongols. The Romans wont do well either. In fact the mongols were usually outnumbered yet suffered very very little casualties against Europeon armies. Yet when faced with an army that employed similar strategies as well as emphasis on archery(korea for example) much more difficulty was encountered. It took 20 years to beat Korea(despite it being a very tiny nation and the Mongols probably having the number advantage) even with Mongol + Chinese and other conquered groups assisting them. And even then the war did not end with the destruction of the Koreans but actually ended with a truce by both sides with Korea paying tribute and the Mongols no longer attacking korea. Usually the mongols would annihilate those groups who resisted them.

The samurai might have been inferior to the mongols yet the samurais are still superior to the romans due to the fact that they employed horse+archery.

[flipcombatmedic]

how exactly are we suppose to rate it, Samurai's and Legionnaires that come as they are, or how those two "stereotypically" and historically did battle?

What i'm saying is do we duel them individually, with their historic stereotypical armaments and pit them against each other?

or do we take the whole Japanese/Samurai and Roman/Leggionnaire units, complete with calvaries and siege units and accessory units ie peasant troops for the Japanese and special shock troops, combustible pigs, and rabbid dogs for the Leggionnaires, and pit them how they do warfare?

personally i think it's a tie. both singular and plural sense. because each side have different strenths and weaknesses, that could be exploited by each side.

[Rad Raz]

Legionaries did have horseback riders. Ever heard of Cohort/Urban Legionary calvaries?

And Roman legionaries did have archer based squad.

[ScanSoul]

Are you sure, samurai on horseback+ arrows, was the japanese main army? Not foot soldiers.

The only horseback master + arrows I have heard of where mongolian soldiers. Each mongolian warrior use to have 2 horses.

What does this have to do with anything. This topic is about samurai vs. roman legionnaire not samurai + peasant soldiers vs. Roman Legionnaire. Of course the common peasant soldier isn’t going to have a horse nor is he/she going to have expensive high class swords. Theyd probably be armed with cheaper weapons like spears.

And Scan Soul your wrong. Most Japanese movies and especially cartoons like to depict samurais during war as lone swordsman who charged the opponent while hacking at them with their sword. The truth however was that the samurais viewed the sword as a secondary weapon while the bow was preferred. And if you clearly look at what the samurais carried to war you’ll find that they don’t carry shields. They carry fantastic swords but no shield that I know of. You wont last long on foot if your armed only with a sword vs. an army that’s hailing arrows at you. The Japanese wernt stupid, instead the standard tactic was actually horseback archers. The Mongols used it, the Koreans used it and so did the Japanese. In Mongol society the bow is the legendary weapon. The Koreans win just about every gold medal in archery available, and in Japan the sword is legendary. The reason being that during WW1 and WW2 swords could be mass produced so that even the common soldier during war could possess one(which really boosted moral). Then theres also those cartoons where the main character uses fancy magic techniques with his sword.

And judging by the fact that horseback archers were vastly superior to just about any army during the sword, spear etc age I can say that the Japanese easilly defeat the roman legionarre. The Crusaders(Europes best warriors at the time) who had experience fighting Muslims in the Crusades did poorly against the mongols. The Romans wont do well either. In fact the mongols were usually outnumbered yet suffered very very little casualties against Europeon armies. Yet when faced with an army that employed similar strategies as well as emphasis on archery(korea for example) much more difficulty was encountered. It took 20 years to beat Korea(despite it being a very tiny nation and the Mongols probably having the number advantage) even with Mongol + Chinese and other conquered groups assisting them. And even then the war did not end with the destruction of the Koreans but actually ended with a truce by both sides with Korea paying tribute and the Mongols no longer attacking korea. Usually the mongols would annihilate those groups who resisted them.

The samurai might have been inferior to the mongols yet the samurais are still superior to the romans due to the fact that they employed horse+archery.

the mongols used bows more often than swords becuz the landscape.....in the gobi...there is no forest or anything to hidde you up.....when they fight they tend do head to head on horse back and use bows from a long distance...hoever in japan you cant do that,becuz japan is mostly forest and mountains.......
samurais were the personal guard for most japanese warlords.....soldier were most consisted of famers.....
and for the katana viewed as secandary weapon thing not true......samurais carries two weapons with them...one is the long katana and one is the short one....bcuz the short range bettels in japan....
koreans are well know for its defense power mayby thats y it took mongol 20 years to take it over.....but the real story why it took mongols so long to take over korea was bcuz they goal was to take over northen china,they were fighting the west xia,the jin,the song....remember the jin(jurchen were from manchuria and manchuria is right next to korea,if mongol wants to take over korea they have to take over the jurchens first and the jurchens were much stronger than koreans at the time......so its not suprising that it took mongols 20 years to conquered korea....
you have to remember that mongols were interested in the song china bcuz song dynasty was weak and rich....y would they spend majority of they time on korea????

[onepairofpant]

http://www.imninalu.net/Huns.htm

did the huns own europe, including rome? not quite samurai but still

[ScanSoul]

http://www.imninalu.net/Huns.htm

did the huns own europe, including rome? not quite samurai but still

yes the huns did owned part of europe.....the attila of huns............
they moved to the west after been defeated by the hans of china,the northen huns moved to the west and the southen huns had intermerried with local chinese,in gansu, shaanxi area....they adopted the chinese last name Liu...

[gesturer]

Legionaries did have horseback riders. Ever heard of Cohort/Urban Legionary calvaries?

And Roman legionaries did have archer based squad.

Roman horseback riders were not ranged fighters. Samurai were. This really isn't a debate. Samurai had an advanced strategy in using the horseback archer.

The Mongols used their horseback riders to obliterate European armies many centuries after the end of the Roman empire.

[gesturer]

best soldier our of all asians must be mongol, serving time for each man was from
16yr old until 60 and they never get paid!!

So why does this make them good?
Just a bunch of frighten kids and grampas (IMG:http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/thumbsdown.gif)

Actually, Mongols are not considered the best soldiers among just Asians. Many historians regard them as the best conquistadors of all time.

[Yi Sun Sin]

I know it somewhat off topic, but how do you think the korean "samurais" will do? against the japanese and romans?

[gesturer]

This is your first post? Interesting...

[Brian T]

Do people realize that very few samurai were expert swordsmen? That's why it's such a legendary thing when one is good with the sword, because he's able to out-duel many other samurai. If you're going to use the argument of 1vs1, that the samurai would win because he's a master swordsmen, and the Roman is merely a soldier, it would only be fair to also give the Roman soldier an equal amount of skill with his weapon. I'm sure there were Roman soldiers renown for their skills as sword duelist.