Samurai vs Roman Soldier Options

[EvilAsianDude]

No your being delusional. The Roman troop in 1:1 melee combat has pretty much all the advantages. Not only that but Samurais ONLY FOUGHT AMONGST THEMSELVES. They never encountered or fought shield users so they would know virtually nothing about how to counter it. The Romans however did fight other shield, saber, two handed blade users and other fighters who are not that different from the samurais in swordsmanship. What advantage does the samurai have here, please tell me? Sharper swords are useless when they cant even penetrate a shield that covers pretty much the entire body of the legionnaire nor can a slash guarantee penetration of plate armor. And these shields are lighter than youd expect, light enough that some even ran/charged the opponents with them when their formations were broken. Also Roman swords were shorter and even lighter(that’s right look at the weight comparison) than the average Katana. Its even further enhanced by the fact that the roman gladius was used primarily for quick stabs at the opponents(stabs are faster than slashes).

And the Japanese got rather lucky when facing the Mongols. The Mongol army fought the Japanese samurai. The Samurai were slaughtered rather easily, but the Japanese got lucky when a storm blew out and destroyed most of the Mongol fleet. The remaining Mongols who survived the storm had no where to run and very little in supplies so they were beaten. This storm was even given a name- “Kamikaze” or divine wind, which would later be termed for suicide plane bombing during WW2.

[lilasiankid]

Mongol tactics made them superior against he samurai plus Samurai were poorly armoured. Like said before, it was the "Divine winds" that struck twice to force large mongol/korean fleets to withdraw and thus creating the myth that Japanese were the divine people for the country of Japan and could never be conquered.

That's why we'll never know for sure because the Samurai never fought the world. New strategies are created to adapt to fighting New enemies. That's why Romans were so great because they dealt with all sorts of enemies. Japan never needed new ways of fighting until they eventually dealt with powerful westerners and THEN they realized the need for "upgrade" and look at what they became, a fearsome superpower.

Ironically , the idea of modernizing was for the Samurai Spirit to live on through the new military soldier but the transition didnt turn out as beautiful (IMG:http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/embarassedlaugh.gif)

Hmm...would Musashi Miyamoto and Sun Tzu be two completely different people? I mean, didn't Musashi look to better himself as an individual man or warrior and his principles were based on that? Or did he create military strategies too?

This post has been edited by lilasiankid: Jul 5 2005, 08:57 AM

[jareth_chong]

If it was one on one, I am 100% sure that a samurai would whip a legionaire's arse.

If it was a battle between two armies, I think a Roman legion would win. The Roman legion was a very versatile army that had adapted and fought against many different types of enemy and won, while the same can't be said about an army of Samurai.

This post has been edited by jareth_chong: Jul 5 2005, 09:08 AM

[Vp_Y_22]

all i can say is, a samurai sword will cut right through those big @$$ euro swords. you cant deny it, Japanese make the best swords.

edit: and why are you guys debating army vs army? i believe the topic is "A samurai vs A roman soldier.

This post has been edited by Vp_Y_22: Jul 5 2005, 09:48 AM

[Minako_megami]

In regards to the legion crap... that is not the Question... the question is Roman solier (Note: singular) against Samurai. (note: also singular)

[Minako_megami]

for some reason it wont seem to show the buttons for me any more... so i will corect my typo since i cant edit v.v

Solider**

[flipcombatmedic]

i think alot of people here overexaggerate Samurai skills and the understate leggionnaires'.

i think it hard to distinguish, two are very good warriors but in different timelines and regions.

but alot of people here underestimate Romans' one one one skill to fight. Many leggionnaires were once Gladiators or gladiators turned leggionnaires. And if you asked me, gladiators are expert fighting one on one.

[Suijen]

i think alot of people here overexaggerate Samurai skills and the understate leggionnaires'.

i think it hard to distinguish, two are very good warriors but in different timelines and regions.

but alot of people here underestimate Romans' one one one skill to fight. Many leggionnaires were once Gladiators or gladiators turned leggionnaires. And if you asked me, gladiators are expert fighting one on one.

They practically lived and died by these kinds of competition; they'd better be good.

[jareth_chong]

but alot of people here underestimate Romans' one one one skill to fight. Many leggionnaires were once Gladiators or gladiators turned leggionnaires. And if you asked me, gladiators are expert fighting one on one.

Where the heck did flipcombatmedic learn his history?!?

All these are pretty BASIC history:

Roman legionaires were CONSCRIPTS--citizens levied for individual campaigns. Later, they were comprised of lower-class citizens who were poor and unemployed. Military provided those lower class the best chance of a good life. Legionaires were NOT professional nor lifetime warriors. (So, Roman legionaires are kinda like the US Army of today, in the way they usually absorb citizens from the lower class; rich Roman children did not fight in war; Rich American kids don't join the Army.)

Wikipedia | Roman Legion

Gladiators were typically prisoners of war, slaves, and sentenced criminals. POWs were not citizens. Slaves were not citizens. Most gladiators--since they were not citizens--could not join the Roman legions.

Wikipedia | Gladiator

Samurai, on the other hand, were professional and lifetime warrior. A samurai was born into the noble, warrior clan and trained from birth to become a warrior.

Wikipedia | Samurai

Simply put, the quality of an individual Roman legionaire (conscripted from the common citizens) could NOT possibly on the same level with a samurai who dedicated his entire life to military training and the "way of the sword."

This post has been edited by jareth_chong: Jul 5 2005, 06:12 PM

[Titanium]

I don't know why this thread has gone on for so long. A single Roman soldier vs. a Samurai? Well that all depends on the individual talents of the two warriors. However I'm more than 100% positive a Roman Legion army would crush a samurai army.

[Col]

all i can say is, a samurai sword will cut right through those big @$$ euro swords.  you cant deny it, Japanese make the best swords.

edit:  and why are you guys debating army vs army?  i believe the topic is "A samurai vs A roman soldier.

You're kidding right? Depends on what type of sword the katana's used against, yes it's theoretically possible. Some European swords are designed to break on contact, but in the process delivering enough kinetic energy to strike down the other person. And yes we can deny it, the Japanese do not make the best swords. There are simply no "best swords" unless you count those crazy @$$ weapons from Romance of the 3 Kingdoms and such.

[Mr. Tree]

Mongol tactics made them superior against he samurai plus Samurai were poorly armoured. Like said before, it was the "Divine winds" that struck twice to force large mongol/korean fleets to withdraw and thus creating the myth that Japanese were the divine people for the country of Japan and could never be conquered.

That's why we'll never know for sure because the Samurai never fought the world. New strategies are created to adapt to fighting New enemies. That's why Romans were so great because they dealt with all sorts of enemies. Japan never needed new ways of fighting until they eventually dealt with powerful westerners and THEN they realized the need for "upgrade" and look at what they became, a fearsome superpower.

Ironically , the idea of modernizing was for the Samurai Spirit to live on through the new military soldier but the transition didnt turn out as beautiful  (IMG:http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/embarassedlaugh.gif)

Hmm...would Musashi Miyamoto and Sun Tzu be two completely different people? I mean, didn't Musashi look to better himself as an individual man or warrior and his principles were based on that? Or did he create military strategies too?

its Mongol Chinese AND Korean fleet (IMG:http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/beerchug.gif)

Musashi had the book of 5 rings, Sun Tzu the Art of War. Musashi would have made the better duelist, Sun Tzu would be the victor at all times although he was more a strategist, why? strategy always overcomes skill. just think about it

[Mr. Tree]

all i can say is, a samurai sword will cut right through those big @$$ euro swords.  you cant deny it, Japanese make the best swords.

edit:  and why are you guys debating army vs army?  i believe the topic is "A samurai vs A roman soldier.

um...youve been watching too much anime.... even Japanese dont claim this (IMG:http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/Talktohand.gif)

lol for starters idd say at best a Katana will CUT into a euro sword, but not straight through. they did test on Swordforum.com between a kitchen chopper and a katana, katana cut 10 cm into the chopper (btw it had the same results when someone used a Da Dao against the chopper) this means Asian sword at the time had a great advantage over western sword technology, hell western arms couldnt compete with any Asian weapons untill some Indian/Iranians discovered Wootz Damascus steel.

just incase you dont know, sword technology to Japan came from China via Korea....alot of influence including rigid cross sections, sanmei construction, folding steel, clay heat treatment, differential heat treatment, i forgot the Japanese names :s

the curvature of Japanese blades came from Mongol influences after the japanese were defeated at hakata bay, the samurai later adopted the curved style blades of the continental Asians.

[Mr. Tree]

ah i meant 1 cm not 10 cm ..... lol

[lilasiankid]

I wouldnt think the Samurai swords were that fine even though they were INCREDIBLY sharp. But not every samurai warrior carried fine swords. Heh, not even everyone in a Japanese Sengoku period army were all Samurai.

But yeah, Asians did start out more advanced in terms or Civilization and technology than Westerners.

[Minako_megami]

I don't know why this thread has gone on for so long. A single Roman soldier vs. a Samurai? Well that all depends on the individual talents of the two warriors. However I'm more than 100% positive a Roman Legion army would crush a samurai army.

Singular.... the Thred refers to both end in Singular...one on one and yes Most gladiators where prisoners and slaves how ever in times of desperation they where commonly offered their freedom through fighting in the Legion.... of course they where the Front line..... Meaning they ones that weant ahead of the rest of the legion (sort of) to reduse the numbers =p the romans whern't stupid (IMG:http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/sure.gif)

[azndood]

I don't know why this thread has gone on for so long. A single Roman soldier vs. a Samurai? Well that all depends on the individual talents of the two warriors. However I'm more than 100% positive a Roman Legion army would crush a samurai army.

Singular.... the Thred refers to both end in Singular...one on one and yes Most gladiators where prisoners and slaves how ever in times of desperation they where commonly offered their freedom through fighting in the Legion.... of course they where the Front line..... Meaning they ones that weant ahead of the rest of the legion (sort of) to reduse the numbers =p the romans whern't stupid (IMG:http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/sure.gif)

hrm id bet my money on a roman solider
a lot more fearsome, battle hardened, and more built
then a puny samurai heheh

This post has been edited by azndood: Jul 21 2005, 04:35 PM

[neonflux]

after all that..i dont even know..cant be compared...samurais most of the time used clothe-like clothings right? if not then the armor of the samurai mustve made them the same speed as the roman warriors

first of all..armor slows people down...samurais held light weight swords and light weight armor... ever thought they would be slow even with light weight stuff? katanas dont need too much strengh to cut, therefore they werent built to hold HEAVY things but armor dragged them down, thats why its ideal for a regular samurai to wear regular clothing or such. as i read before many samurais were regular people, not mostly military use. (as been told by many posters before this, speed and swiftness is the samurais name, armor just doesnt help)

romans, (which id say is pretty rigged for the samurais considering the times are kinda different.) would be the same speed id say, heavy armor but some dude thats ripped like hells holding it, aint sht to them.
if its knights, then id say knights would own so much. full body armor and arm him with a shield and sword...its over (IMG:http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/beerchug.gif)

so..DRAW!!!! (IMG:http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/icon_confused.gif)

im biased on chinese and korean ancient military (mongolians i have respect for them too). (IMG:http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/biggthumpup.gif)

ANYONE TRIED COMPARING SHAOLIN MONKS?!?! (if the opponent have armor then thats just rigged...) (IMG:http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/embarassedlaugh.gif)

[Col]

You kidding? Shaolin monks will whoop everyone's asses!

[manicbeastofkaer...]

You are watching too much Samurai Champloo. Actual japanese warriors/samurai were fat, drunk perverts. The only reason Japan survived for so long was because it was isolated, after they got Western modern weapons things changed for them.