Samurai vs Roman Soldier Options

[Mr. Tree]

Ancient Asian warfare relies more on archery more than swordsmanship.  The Chinese and Korean soldiers made extensive uses of bows, hell, the Chinese had powerful crossbows wayyyyyyyy back in the days.  Samurais, as far as i know, fight as horse archers.  The Romans did lose the Battle of Carr Plain or something like that agaisnt the Parthian horse archers after all.

A katana might be sharp, but it's not a miracle blade.  As for:

wow are you stupid... you missed an entire sentence of that post..... I have a katana that has stodd a strike from a Mual .... a 100+ pound war hammer in a full over head swing.... note it cost me 300 dollars in repairs but the european blades break when struck with a mace..... Brute strength does not win battles... grace speed and skill will over come any fool of a knight whearing a steel can thinking it will protect him

Wow, are you optimistic. A battle mace against a katana. Ok, the katana is okay, how about the person holding it? Is the blade still in his hands? Is he still standing up? I wanna see someone stand up agaisnt the sheer kinetic energy of a mace! Brute strength does not win battle, neither do grace speed and skill. You need intelligence, skills, firepower, speed, AND spatial awareness to defeat an opponent. Grace in battle is for show. When you're getting killed and must fight back, who the hell cares about grace? Are you putting on a circus show?

The Samurai IS overrated. If you wanna see better warriors, the ancient Chinese and Korean are more notorious yet obscure in that title

that was the battle of Carhae, the parthians used asiatic styled bows \which peirced through roman armour and sheilds, the roman testudo (tortioise formation) was rendered useless against them

[Col]

Yep that's what i had in mind. Thanks for the backup tree

[Mr. Tree]

np.


ill say this much is for sure though, if a fully armoured samurai were to DUEL a Roman Praetor and were using swords only (of course the roman has a sheild aswell) i would say the samura has a greater chance of winning due to the different time period of weapons technology (japanese uses the updated clay-heated 3 plate contructed folded steel swords whereas the roman used wrought iron blades. (reason is because samurai didnt exist when roman soldiers were around)

However, if it were a BATTLE< the romans would definately win even with inferior weapons, why? they have the advantage of sheilds, formation (samurai had this too but usually scraped it once in the battle) pilum, We canot add horse archers, otherwise ill just add Auxillary horsemen.

this is a contest between men not man and beast so it seems alot more fair. along with all this, the romans have much more experience against all types of enemies from the mediteranean Greek hoplites (long @$$ spearmen) to the east against sythians( armed with similar Asiatic bows to the central Asians as well as cavalry) and against people in what is today Germany,france,,Spain,britain, etc.

its just the way it is

This post has been edited by Mr. Tree: Jul 1 2005, 08:05 PM

[lilasiankid]

The Samurai IS overrated.  If you wanna see better warriors, the ancient Chinese and Korean are more notorious yet obscure in that title

Chinese and Koreans should do a better job to glorify their ancient warriors. Because they had even COOLER armour. More heavy armour for the elite warriors that is.

However, Samurai appeal to me more than Korean "Flower Boys" (IMG:http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/embarassedlaugh.gif) 2

[SJK]

However, Samurai appeal to me more than Korean "Flower Boys"

I see what you mean on the one hand but I find the "flower boys" concept very beautiful and intriguing. First, its a misunderstanding as to the title which is "Hwarang" literal translation is "flowering manhood." This is in no way resembles "flower boys" and any connotation that would be attached is purely imaginary or even delusional. These were warriors. Their training, all of it was original and has a mystical quality about it, very obscure. They were trained to be gentlemen and poets, healers, shamans, artists as well. It was a very unique, all-encompassing training and concept. I wouldn't knock it, you weren't there so you can't judge who or what they really were. The hwarang or korean knights defended their borders for over 1500 years. Thats extraordinarily impressive, they were not weakllings or all "gays" or the typical stereotypes that would conjure up. They were also the first asian warrior class to really submerge spirituality, meditation, buddhist principles and honor code within their fighting concept. As the tide turned and confucianism took over korea, it was the end of them and that era. I think the title is what can misconstrue. I think in some ways the samurai class resembles their legacy even if its a bit obscurely or can't be proven. I don't believe having some culture or sensitivity in itself is weak even in a warrior either where it can enhance mental, emotional, physical, and spiritual strength, discipline, and concentration.

This post has been edited by SJK: Jul 3 2005, 01:21 AM

[lilasiankid]

However, Samurai appeal to me more than Korean "Flower Boys"

I see what you mean on the one hand but I find the "flower boys" concept very beautiful and intriguing. First, its a misunderstanding as to the title which is "Hwarang" literal translation is "flowering manhood." This is in no way resembles "flower boys" and any connotation that would be attached is purely imaginary or even delusional. These were warriors. Their training, all of it was original and has a mystical quality about it, very obscure. They were trained to be gentlemen and poets, healers, shamans, artists as well. It was a very unique, all-encompassing training and concept. I wouldn't knock it, you weren't there so you can't judge who or what they really were. The hwarang or korean knights defended their borders for over 1500 years. Thats extraordinarily impressive, they were not weakllings or all "gays" or the typical stereotypes that would conjure up. They were also the first asian warrior class to really submerge spirituality, meditation, buddhist principles and honor code within their fighting concept. As the tide turned and confucianism took over korea, it was the end of them and that era. I think the title is what can misconstrue. I think in some ways the samurai class resembles their legacy even if its a bit obscurely or can't be proven. I don't believe having some culture or sensitivity in itself is weak even in a warrior either where it can enhance mental, emotional, physical, and spiritual strength, discipline, and concentration.

I'm just saying.....Samurai are more appealing to people in today's time, that's why so many people think they are cool. Hwarang are very elite warriors, but if you go look at the drawings of them, you'll see lot's of guys with make up and silky clothes on.

BTW, what kind of warriors and Armour were the ones in the movie "Sword in the Moon"????? I remember in one flashback part of the movie it showed them training and they were jumping with swords looking like the Hwarang depictions.

[onepairofpant]

(IMG:http://www.pride-of-korea.de/SWORD_IN_THE_MOON/wallpaper_02_1024.jpg)

(IMG:http://www.pride-of-korea.de/SWORD_IN_THE_MOON/wallpaper_01_1024.jpg)

(IMG:http://cinema.coreen.free.fr/img/dvd/197/poster.jpg)

(IMG:http://www.pride-of-korea.de/SWORD_IN_THE_MOON/681p-attach-7.jpg)

(IMG:http://www.pride-of-korea.de/SWORD_IN_THE_MOON/681p-attach-3.jpg)

(IMG:http://www.pride-of-korea.de/SWORD_IN_THE_MOON/681p-attach-2.jpg)

flower boys? whoooooo didnt think so, you want some of that

[lilasiankid]

Chinese and Korean heavy armour is the SH*T!

[Mr. Tree]

(IMG:http://www.pride-of-korea.de/SWORD_IN_THE_MOON/wallpaper_02_1024.jpg)

(IMG:http://www.pride-of-korea.de/SWORD_IN_THE_MOON/wallpaper_01_1024.jpg)

(IMG:http://cinema.coreen.free.fr/img/dvd/197/poster.jpg)

(IMG:http://www.pride-of-korea.de/SWORD_IN_THE_MOON/681p-attach-7.jpg)

(IMG:http://www.pride-of-korea.de/SWORD_IN_THE_MOON/681p-attach-3.jpg)

(IMG:http://www.pride-of-korea.de/SWORD_IN_THE_MOON/681p-attach-2.jpg)

flower boys? whoooooo didnt think so, you want some of that

um your using a movie for a reference -rolleyes

lol why dont i just use The Promise and claim we had mystical magic powers which could blow people up with sword energy (IMG:http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/embarassedlaugh.gif)

[Minako_megami]

I have bean gone for to long.....

first when did i state the that a katana would cut down a tree?

second.....

The smaurai where equiped for 1 on 1 combat... you are an idiot... the sumrai where not only soldiers they where mercinaries ( of sorts) aswell.... they where very often to act as body gaurds and very very frequently duled each other for titles of honor,land...ect...ect They where very well trained for 1:1 combat...

[lilasiankid]

(IMG:http://www.oakengates.com/history/images/Legionnaire_4.jpg)

(IMG:http://www.oakengates.com/history/images/Legionnaire_1.jpg)

(IMG:http://www.legionsix.org/Ft%20Mac%2003%20testudo.jpg)

(IMG:http://www.legionsix.org/Ft%20Mac%2003%20Leg%20VI%20Nautica.jpg)

(IMG:http://www.cineclub.de/images/2004/01/last-samurai-6.jpg)

(IMG:http://www.baylug.org/ninja/img/Warriors.jpg)

(IMG:http://www.bmdailey.com/images/Okazaki/OkazakiMatsuri/SamuraiGroupNihon.jpg)

Don't mind the glasses (IMG:http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/embarassedlaugh.gif) 2

(IMG:http://www.samurai-arts.co.nz/shinkendo_obatA.jpg)

(IMG:http://images.encarta.msn.com/xrefmedia/sharemed/targets/images/pho/00012/00012DC4.jpg)

This post has been edited by lilasiankid: Jul 4 2005, 12:19 PM

[JB_Xyooj]

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.

A comparison of the Samurai's swordsmanship and a Legionnaire's swordsmanship would be impossible. I'm inclined to say the Samurai was more skilled with the sword in general. First of all, there is the renowned Asian concentration. Look at the batting averages of the Japanese in the MLB. Now replace that bat with a sword...

And at the same time, look at the batting averages of some of the greatest American ball players...what's your point? Anybody can become greatly skilled at anything. I don't think you need some 'Asian concentration' to do it. 'White, black, hispanic, whatever concentration' seems to do just as good. I'd be inclinded to say you've been watching too many samurai movies.

Hmmm If i could remeber well from something i read

when Japan first was introduced to baseball, and formed their very own little league or something like that.

they went to face off with the booing crowd of american, and their all time american rival

eventually in the end, american @$$ was handed to them in a special doggy bag
that said, Japan Owned ya in baseball

from history accounts of coruse. eventually america wanted a rematch, which turned into another humiliating defeat (IMG:http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/sure.gif)

[lilasiankid]

Hmmm If i could remeber well from something i read

when Japan first was introduced to baseball, and formed their very own little league or something like that.

they went to face off with the booing crowd of american, and their all time american rival

eventually in the end, american @$$ was handed to them in a special doggy bag
that said, Japan Owned ya in baseball

from history accounts of coruse. eventually america wanted a rematch, which turned into another humiliating defeat (IMG:http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/sure.gif)

Wow! I did not know that. That's badass! What's up with Japanese and Baseball? You know the largest number of Americans living in Japan are famous baseball players.

[EvilAsianDude]

Did I ever mention that a samurai can cut a tree? Nope I never did you dolt.

The Roman soldier however was equipped with a wooden Shield. How the hell is a samurai going to cut through a shield with his sword? One advantage of wooden shields were that bladed weapons would sometimes stick onto them which means a weaponless samurai. Use that god danm pile of $hit inside your head which everyone calls a brain. You cant cut a shield like they do in cartoons. Samurais never developed shields since the only people they fought were amongst themselves. They did fight Koreans during 1592 but that hardly counts as the samurais we’re using since these warriors used mostly rifles rather than the romantic sword charge. In some cases swordsman were indeed trained for 1:1 but they ONLY people they fought were fellow sword users. They didn’t fight foreign troops with pilums+plate armor+ shields+ swords. What the hell can a samurai do when his opponent not only has a faster weapon(since the Gladius is shorter and is used for stabbing rather than slashing) but also a shield that covers virtually his entire body, and loricated armor which was effective against slashing weapons?

You do realize that Samruai swords were made to be used more on horse rather than on foot? Since curved sabers were effective when your horse was moving. Face it a samurai in most duels will lose.

[lilasiankid]

They each have their own advantages/disadvantages I guess. Romans had that testudo formation that was really neat for protection against arrows so they could advance slowly towards the enemy.

However, 1 on 1, the shield could either be either good or bad cuz they were very large shields, a smart samurai would find a way to get around it plus he would have an extra short sword handy. Samurai swords were really much better than Roman's since you could either slash or stab with them and they were incredibly light.

Either soldiers were well armoured. The romans had strong really strong plate armour but there were still vulnerable spots.

Samurai were so isolated that we'd never know what the outcome would be. They did not suceed with invading Korea, and they were greatly threatened by Mongols but then again the Mongols whooped everyone's @$$.

I still think Han VS Roman would be a better comparison!

This post has been edited by lilasiankid: Jul 4 2005, 07:04 PM

[CTM2000]

Umm Japan successfully repelled the Mongols. Anyways this thread is stupid, as much as I respect the ancient Samurai tradition, it's overglorified by the American media and bunch of Japanophile tools. To say that a samurai army would take a Roman Legion or an army of knights or even more hilarious a nomadic cavalry is insane. Victory in battle is not attributed to simply dueling it out with swords. There's a reason Japan dropped her samurai tradition and went for modern weapons you know.

[Mr. Tree]

I have bean gone for to long.....

first when did i state the that a katana would cut down a tree? 

second.....

The smaurai where equiped for 1 on 1 combat... you are an idiot... the sumrai where not only soldiers they where mercinaries ( of sorts) aswell.... they where very often to act as body gaurds and very very frequently duled each other for titles of honor,land...ect...ect    They where very well trained for 1:1  combat...

whats your point? that they were good 1 on 1? its like saying a grapple wrestler against 2 karateka..... lol wrestler = massacred lol

1 on 1 combat on the battlefield is pointless.... its just stupid. no matter how 'skilled' you maybe, skill can never overcome strategy, why do you think Sun Tzu was more succesful than Musashi when it came to bodycounts? because his smart enough to get others to do his dirty work! :P

[Mr. Tree]

Did I ever mention that a samurai can cut a tree? Nope I never did you dolt.

The Roman soldier however was equipped with a wooden Shield. How the hell is a samurai going to cut through a shield with his sword? One advantage of wooden shields were that bladed weapons would sometimes stick onto them which means a weaponless samurai. Use that god danm pile of $hit inside your head which everyone calls a brain. You cant cut a shield like they do in cartoons. Samurais never developed shields since the only people they fought were amongst themselves. They did fight Koreans during 1592 but that hardly counts as the samurais we’re using since these warriors used mostly rifles rather than the romantic sword charge. In some cases swordsman were indeed trained for 1:1 but they ONLY people they fought were fellow sword users. They didn’t fight foreign troops with pilums+plate armor+ shields+ swords. What the hell can a samurai do when his opponent not only has a faster weapon(since the Gladius is shorter and is used for stabbing rather than slashing) but also a shield that covers virtually his entire body, and loricated armor which was effective against slashing weapons?

You do realize that Samruai swords were made to be used more on horse rather than on foot? Since curved sabers were effective when your horse was moving. Face it a samurai in most duels will lose.

not only that but the romans were PROVEN effective against other nations.

[JB_Xyooj]

Umm Japan successfully repelled the Mongols. Anyways this thread is stupid, as much as I respect the ancient Samurai tradition, it's overglorified by the American media and bunch of Japanophile tools. To say that a samurai army would take a Roman Legion or an army of knights or even more hilarious a nomadic cavalry is insane. Victory in battle is not attributed to simply dueling it out with swords. There's a reason Japan dropped her samurai tradition and went for modern weapons you know.

i got to agree with you on that, The samurai did drop their weapon for modern
day tech. eventually, the samurai lead by takamori Saigo were defeated by the imperial troops. therefore ending the era of the samurai

another thing, the samurai repelled the mongol only due to the storm of the kamikaze, if it wasn't due to that storm, i believe the samurai would had been doomed, like that of the chinese, and korean dynasty. (IMG:http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/sure.gif)

[Mr. Tree]

Umm Japan successfully repelled the Mongols. Anyways this thread is stupid, as much as I respect the ancient Samurai tradition, it's overglorified by the American media and bunch of Japanophile tools. To say that a samurai army would take a Roman Legion or an army of knights or even more hilarious a nomadic cavalry is insane. Victory in battle is not attributed to simply dueling it out with swords. There's a reason Japan dropped her samurai tradition and went for modern weapons you know.

EXACTLY. someone with a brain here! (IMG:http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/beerchug.gif)

just one thing, the saburai didnt actually repel the mongols..... they were advised to retreat by the korean admiral to a safer harbour because a storm was coming... unfortuanately they got caught right in the middle of the typhoon.....after that they left, the japanese collected some survivors (fujianese and a few koreans) to be used as slaves, this is know because 1 of 3 fujianese escaped back to china.