Samurai vs Roman Soldier Options

[DarkcaTT]

Greeks soldiers trained from a very young age  (IMG:http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/icon_wink.gif) They were atheletes and good soldiers, even in a 1v1  (IMG:http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/beerchug.gif)

You are talking about the Spartans. And they were known as one of the best soldiers in the world in history.

Not just Spartans, any greek soldier in general. Although Spartans were the best! (IMG:http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/biggthumpup.gif)

[Fil-Am]

Roman Legions were some of the best fighting forces in the Ancient world. They managed to take almost all of Western Europe and the Middle East. They fought barbarian forces larger in number then them and still one, they would demolish the samurai.

This post has been edited by Fil-Am: Nov 27 2004, 08:38 PM

[lilasiankid]

Weren't Samurai more advanced warriors than Romans were at the time? Plus romans fought alot of unorganized barbarian tribes.....Samurai also had tactics and strategy......Sun Tzu's art of war......Plus Romans were not that heavily armored......would be close.....but it is better comparing Rome to a closer people....Han China.....they would have to conquer them before they would ever reach Japan.....

This post has been edited by lilasiankid: Nov 27 2004, 10:19 PM

[Mantis]

Samurais would totally wipe the floor with Roman soldiers in a 1 on 1 battle. But a tightly grouped Roman formation would easily beat an equal number of Samurai warriors. In war, I'd bet my money on the Roman Testudo or Greek Phalanx, over the Japanese style of warfare preferring individual swordsmanship over proper formation.

(IMG:http://ccwf.cc.utexas.edu/~warfare/Lectures/Images/4.17/01_macedonian_phalanx.jpg)

This type of formation is nearly impossible to break, especially for lightly-armored, spear-less, samurai warriors in loose formation.

This post has been edited by Mantis: Nov 27 2004, 10:32 PM

[Rad Raz]

Weren't Samurai more advanced warriors than Romans were at the time? Plus romans fought alot of unorganized barbarian tribes.....Samurai also had tactics and strategy......Sun Tzu's art of war......Plus Romans were not that heavily armored......would be close.....but it is better comparing Rome to a closer people....Han China.....they would have to conquer them before they would ever reach Japan.....

Romans were more advanced with their strategy of fighting. Ever heard of Tetsudo formation with their shields? Plus Romans were heavily armored, especially those Urban and First Cohort Legions.

How in the hell are Romans close to Han chinese?

This post has been edited by Rad Raz: Nov 27 2004, 10:35 PM

[Cold_As_Ice]

Romans and Mongolians would be a better match.

[lilasiankid]

How in the hell are Romans close to Han chinese?

The Han Dynasty and Imperial Rome were around the same time........They were Both the 2 powerhouses of the world.......plus they were pretty much next door to eachother...though there was never any conflict....

Romans and Mongolians would be a better match.

Oh...nobody can f*ck with the Mongols........even the Japanese were losing to them before the Kamikaze winds hit....

This post has been edited by lilasiankid: Nov 27 2004, 10:41 PM

[Rad Raz]

The Han Dynasty and Imperial Rome were around the same time........They were Both the 2 powerhouses of the world.......plus they were pretty much next door to eachother...though there was never any conflict....

Thought you were saying they were related...

This post has been edited by Rad Raz: Nov 27 2004, 11:00 PM

[lilasiankid]

Of course that too....they're all God's children.....hahaha...nawww j/p...I dont go to church....

[lilasiankid]

Samurais would totally wipe the floor with Roman soldiers in a 1 on 1 battle. But a tightly grouped Roman formation would easily beat an equal number of Samurai warriors. In war, I'd bet my money on the Roman Testudo or Greek Phalanx, over the Japanese style of warfare preferring individual swordsmanship over proper formation.

This type of formation is nearly impossible to break, especially for lightly-armored, spear-less, samurai warriors in loose formation.

But didn't Japan have more than just Sword wielding warriors......like their own Yari spear weilding troops......They were both pretty man to man.......

[Rappapa]

What are you talking about, ninjas are real, and you bet ya Japanese has different weapons, Asians tend to have swift weapons, fast lighting weapons that'll kill without the victim even knowing what killed him/her self.

Not Chinese weapons.

[hi-head]

Um... guys, all biases aside, i think we should know from empirical evidence of history- the huns sacked Rome, and the huns were similar to the japanese samurai except more primitive. When one remembers that the huns and the japanese are related people with ancestral/cultural ties, one can see what I'm talking about. The samurai did not have any experience in large-scale fighting until the mongols came, but they did have supreme fighting skills in swordsmanship, archery, and cavalry. The Romans thrived in the times far earlier than the first appearance of samurai, so this isn't even a fair comparison, which is why i mention the huns as a prototype of samurai to make a better comparison. The disciplined, heavily armored roman troops proved to be great in the much uncivilized europe of the times, but in the east things were quite different. I mean, these people grew up learning warfare, whether it be the huns roaming the steppes or the clans warriors running medieval korea and japan, they are on horseback flinging arrows before they learn to walk (a lil exagg). Those fine warriors of Rome would be in a hectic situation when the huns come, because those treacherous bastards fight on a totally different level, where speed and swiftness fastforward the pace of battle beyond the grasp of the romans.
As for the medieval knights, they crumbled under the Mongol invasion. The critical flaw was the same: too slow. European armor were too heavy, their horses large but less swift than asian donkeys (heehaw! (IMG:http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) ), and their sword-wielding a tid bit too clumsy in comparison to eastern swordsmanship. Historians say that typically battles involving east/central asian warriors lasted not even half as long as battles among european countries (IMG:http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/eek.gif)

so i think it's samurai handsdown. The samurai did have the best swords, that were light and flexible but still durable, even more so than the large euro swords of the knights

This post has been edited by hi-head: Nov 27 2004, 11:47 PM

[ferrariboy]

Samurai of course...

[Fil-Am]

The Roman Praetorians is better then the samurai. Weren't the Romans skilled in hand to hand combat as well. Plus Roman Generals were military geniuses.

History
The term "Praetorian" came from the tent of the legate of a legion in the field - the praetorium. It was a habit of many Roman generals to choose from the ranks a private force of soldiers to act as bodyguards of the tent or the person. They consisted of both infantry and cavalry. In time, this cohort came to be known as the cohors praetoria, and various notable figures possessed one, including Julius Caesar, Marcus Antonius and Augustus Caesar (Octavianus). As Caesar discovered with the Legio X Gemina, a powerful unit more dangerous than its fellow legions was desirable in the field. When Augustus became the first ruler of the Roman Empire in 27 BC, he decided such a formation was useful not only in war but in politics. Thus, from the ranks of the legions throughout the provinces, Augustus recruited the Praetorian Guard.
Early Guard

[Rad Raz]

But didn't Japan have more than just Sword wielding warriors......like their own Yari spear weilding troops......They were both pretty man to man.......

That's call Phalanx formation which soldiers use long hoplite as their weapon. Those weapons are about 5x longer than spears which samurai yari spearmen have no chance to go break through that formation.

[flipcombatmedic]

Um... guys, all biases aside, i think we should know from empirical evidence of history- the huns sacked Rome, and the huns were similar to the japanese samurai except more primitive. When one remembers that the huns and the japanese are related people with ancestral/cultural ties, one can see what I'm talking about. The samurai did not have any experience in large-scale fighting until the mongols came, but they did have supreme fighting skills in swordsmanship, archery, and cavalry. The Romans thrived in the times far earlier than the first appearance of samurai, so this isn't even a fair comparison, which is why i mention the huns as a prototype of samurai to make a better comparison. The disciplined, heavily armored roman troops proved to be great in the much uncivilized europe of the times, but in the east things were quite different. I mean, these people grew up learning warfare, whether it be the huns roaming the steppes or the clans warriors running medieval korea and japan, they are on horseback flinging arrows before they learn to walk (a lil exagg). Those fine warriors of Rome would be in a hectic situation when the huns come, because those treacherous bastards fight on a totally different level, where speed and swiftness fastforward the pace of battle beyond the grasp of the romans.
As for the medieval knights, they crumbled under the Mongol invasion. The critical flaw was the same: too slow. European armor were too heavy, their horses large but less swift than asian donkeys (heehaw! (IMG:http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) ), and their sword-wielding a tid bit too clumsy in comparison to eastern swordsmanship. Historians say that typically battles involving east/central asian warriors lasted not even half as long as battles among european countries (IMG:http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/eek.gif)

so i think it's samurai handsdown. The samurai did have the best swords, that were light and flexible but still durable, even more so than the large euro swords of the knights

huns were babarians with different tactics. they were great soldiers and highly volatile and determined peeps, but you can't make direct exact comparisons to the most complicated warriors in history. samurais were horseback archers in teh beginning, that's about the similarity with huns. but samurais had a strict chivalric code, and hierarchal placement. they were calm and their swordsmanship were art and religion. that's why some are called swords "saints". i must say that huns were not completely stupid and animalistic people, but when it comes to discipline and strictness the samurai is one that resembles knights, but in a more complicated way.

i think the roman legions wouldn't be an easy prey as a whole army. but a samurai and a legionnarire alone i would say a samurai, but none the less not at all biased against them, they conquered the world for crying out loud.

This post has been edited by flipcombatmedic: Nov 28 2004, 02:43 PM

[lilasiankid]

That's call Phalanx formation which soldiers use long hoplite as their weapon. Those weapons are about 5x longer than spears which samurai yari spearmen have no chance to go break through that formation.

Oh....they'd find a way to fight against them....they arent barbaric, they're Samurai!

Would be great to see Roman sword combat against the way of the Japanese Sword....

[Adee]

japanese would be using gun powder right? roman empire didnt have gun powder am I right?

What the hell is gunpowder have got to do with this?

In fact it has, the samurai at later time fought mostly with canons and guns. It has always been a misconception to think that samurais fought only with swords.

[lilasiankid]

but guns and gunpowder weren't even around until later times.....I believe Gunpowder was introduced to Japan by westerners?

[Eclectic Asian]

Samurai of course...

this isn't biased right??? (IMG:http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/sure.gif)