Samurai vs Roman Soldier Options

[Col]

^ HAVE YOU seen a Shaolin monk train? Have you seen them do crazy things such as the one-fnger push up? Have you seen them practicing with rods, swords, and their fists?

You can't base entire nation's military based on one fricking battle. The battle of salsu was proclaimed as the greatest national victory ever in Koguryo. Again, can the same standard be applied to the Romans, who were slaughtered by the Parthians at the Battle of Carrhae? The British at Bunker Hill? Dumbass commanders pop up every now and then, and so do brilliant commanders who could make the impossible possible.

As for the Shaolin monks being anniliated by the Manchus. Duh, those monks are human being, they don't have iron skins and $hit against an entire army

[totalylegal]

[COLOR=red]

the fact is that china was able to conquere korea,wheher they were really a bounch broken tribes or not.korea was always in the defences side.
the chinese has ben war with the horse riding nomads for thuasand years,from early huns to manchus. they've learned much tactics,calvary from the nomads than any other country.

No, that doesnt really matter. If I went back in time and beat up a 3 year old kid then went to the future and found out that 3 year old kid is now a 30 year old martial arts expert, navy seal and weapons expert then will I be able to beat him up? You see thats why those chinese nationalists have such poor logical skills. Defeating something when it was weak does not equate to defeating it when its stronger in the future. They apply this same logic to Han>Hun>Romans.
The han faced a different kind of hun then what the romans faced. The romans who faced the huns were also not the same romans 400 years ago during caesars time. The Han didnt face atillas modern army of united hun using advance weapons. They instead faced primitve broken tribes without a really good leader.
The Chinese have indeed been at war with almost all of its neighbors. Going into war frequently does not always equate to tactical expertise. Look at the french. They still suck at war.

The "large number" argument is beaten to death i swear. Back in the days that's basically all that matters! They didn't have guided bombs or anything, or effective artillery for that matter. Population in Asia back in the days was already in the high millions, so of course this population number is going to be reflected on the numbers deployed on the battlefield.

Shaolin monks will own anyone on one-on-one basis, just like this thread's based on a one-on-one basis between a Samurai and a Roman soldier

Wrong, large numbers did not always equate to victory. China has been beaten and beaten over and over again by much smaller countries. The only country in asia that had population in the high millions happened to be china. Every other country was actually pretty small in population. In the time of christ for example the chinese made 1/4th of the entire worlds population. Population did no always equate to victory. Chinas largest single invasion attempt I believe was when the sui sent in over 1.1 million warriors in one war.
In one battle the chinese sent 305,000 troops against a force numbering something around 20,000 koreans. Only 2700 chinese troops returned alive. Less than 2700 korean troops were killed I believe. Battle of Salsu is the name if your curious. This is just an example of how much the chinese rely on "tactics" and "smarts" rather than large numbers. If the chinese were master tacticians and experts they would have no trouble defeating a much smaller country when they outnumbered them several times over.

Shaolin monks will not own everyone on a one on one basis. Have you ever seen a real monk fight? Movies dont count. In all honesty the only actions ive seen shaolin monks do were stunts and flips just to show off. Acrobats and stuntmen can do the same thing. But can they fight?
And according to history they did command some troops of normal warriors. But that doesnt count as combat proficency. Some sagging old 70 year old general can be a genius, yet have difficulty throwing a mere punch. The shaolin is over-exaggerated. They didnt do much against the manchu and most of them were killed when the manchus slaughtered and burnt down their temple. The original teachings of the temple are gone actually since the most practioners were killed.

the huns that hans have faced were borken tribes? and the romans faced were a united tribe?

give me a break,the huns in china b4 went to europe were at its peak.they were much powerful and fearful.they have conquered proto-turkic,and proto-mongols and many other tribes.

the huns lost the war to the hans,southern huns assimlated with hans,while the north broken tribe went to the west,it took them 400 yrs to reach europe,at hungaria grass land. do you think they could defeat all the tribes all the way froom china to europe? the best they did was assimlated other tribes to gain its population.


the huns whom romans faced were a broken tribes from china,not the real huns


heres somet maps for you

(IMG:http://www.allempires.com/empires/xiongnu/xiongnu_map1.jpg)

(IMG:http://www.orientarch.uni-halle.de/ca/tutorial/img22.jpg)

(IMG:http://depts.washington.edu/uwch/silkroad/exhibit/xiongnu/images/map.jpg)

(IMG:http://sophistikatedkids.com/turkic/btn_GeographyMaps/AD%20300%20Center%20Huns%20Hunlar1.jpg)


(IMG:http://www.enchantedlearning.com/history/asia/huns/map.GIF)



(IMG:http://www.hyperhistory.com/online_n2/images_n2/huns.gif)

[Wokoo]

Most famous Samurai were from the 1600 to the 1800, Romans were even before the year 0, i think you should comparate a Samurai with a Knight, like someone said and not with a Roman, if oyu like the Romans, then you should comparate it with a gladiator, even if the gladiator fights in the arena.

Btw the roman would win even in a 1vs1. No offence but i would say Samurai were like skilled barbarians, for sure they are good in fight but they fight like barbarians.

[Wokoo]

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

Soz but oyu are wrong, this happened after the fall of the Roman Empire, till Roma had his Empire nobody could get inside it, the wars were on the borders, like with the Parts and with the barbarians from the east.

[MrSzeto]

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

Lol, quite true.

yah 18 shaolin monks will wipe out both armies! haha (IMG:http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/biggthumpup.gif)

[MrSzeto]

[quote=Wokoo,Sep 1 2005, 10:43 PM]
[quote=hi-head,Nov 28 2004, 05:43 AM]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
[/quote]


the huns are closer to the mongolians or chinese...not too simular to the japanese

[MrSzeto]

LOL, those dudes are so funny, what are they doing with their fingers?  (IMG:http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/embarassedlaugh.gif)

practicing the touch of death (IMG:http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/biggthumpup.gif)

[Wokoo]

By the way the Roman Empire was more large then that, also Romans got all the civilization more strong at that time, Greeks, Carthagine, all the middle east, and the barbarians, even if they were barbarians they were milions against Romans.

The mongols empire was half desert, you know that, and you can see it over any map, mountains, like in China big desert and ice lands on the top.

Also the Roman legionairs were organized, the samurai used to fight for their own boss, it was like a war btw tribes and not a war btw civilizations.

Sorry but no way to comparate a Samurai with a Roman Legionaire. The Roman legionair is definility better.

[kunomchu]

Japanese forces were too small and divided. They had lil experience in foreign battles.

[totalylegal]

the samurais were like personal bodyguards

[EvilAsianDude]

^ HAVE YOU seen a Shaolin monk train? Have you seen them do crazy things such as the one-fnger push up? Have you seen them practicing with rods, swords, and their fists?

Yes in fact I have seen some of the stunts they performed. Impressive but what application do they have in real combat? For example a shaolin monk armed with a sabre can charge a horseman with a lance and bow, who do you think will win? Doing one finger pushups are great, but fingers that strong wont make your hands as durable as a shield. Someone with a sword will still chop your limbs off with no effort. Most of the things shaolin monks are cool, acrobatic or simply tricks that can be explained with science. For example bending spears with your chest or sitting on a bed of nails. Actually the ordinary person can do this and so can shaolin people. However someone who can sit on a bed of nails wont be immune from a jab by a spear. Its rather easy to impale a person on a spear. Typically speaking shaolin monks were lightly armored and more like martial artists. Do you actually think a shaolin monk can deflect arrows with his sword easilly like they do in movies? Or they can attack a roman legionairre with a staff or sword. The roman however has a freakin shield that covers his entire body and a short stabbing gladius that a well trained warrior can stab 3 times a second with. Or cavalry archers who can fire arrows at a poor monk while on horseback. Its true that a shaolin monk can defeat the typical chinese infantry since they wernt good anyways. But those monks wont do well against the well trained professionals who are well armed.

In real life monks dont fly or block hundreds of arrows like they do in the movie hero. Nor can monks break boulders with their staff. Oh yeah and those magical pressure point techniques dont exsist. its all fake. Its true that there are certain spots of the body that can mess you up(like poking someone in the solar plexus or kicking them in the balls), but there is no such thing as a special area you can touch to kill someone or make them sleep. Go ask any doctor if you dont believe me.

You can't base entire nation's military based on one fricking battle. The battle of salsu was proclaimed as the greatest national victory ever in Koguryo.

Koreans faught the chinese in several wars, each war containing several battles. Most of them were in koreas favor and in all of the seperate wars korea won(unless you include the time China conquered primitive korean tribes before the sam guk era).

Again, can the same standard be applied to the Romans, who were slaughtered by the Parthians at the Battle of Carrhae? The British at Bunker Hill? Dumbass commanders pop up every now and then, and so do brilliant commanders who could make the impossible possible.

The difference however was that after they lost at the battle of carrhae they would later fight the parthians again. This time they annihlated them, proving that the romans were superior. I believe they fought in 3 other wars in which the romans defeated them. The parthians collapsed due to the romans I believe. The first reason why the romans lost was that they sent their legionaiires to fight the parthians on parthian soil. The parthians lived in the desert and wore lightly(to help against the heat) they also traveled well in the sand. The romans however brought heavy armor and shields and didnt bring as much water as they should have. Because the romans were basically sinking in the sand there was little they could do against them in that battle. The next time the romans met each other the romans were prepared and this time they won.
There are dumbass comanders everywhere however China armies were mostly quanitiy based. A lot of the victories china won could have been won by a 5 year old who knows nothing about commanding an army. Just tell the army to surround and kill the enemy.

As for the Shaolin monks being anniliated by the Manchus. Duh, those monks are human being, they don't have iron skins and $hit against an entire army

You still havent given out a reason why shaolin monks would own everyone. (other than doing flips and one finger pushups which is rather pointless in real combat).

[EvilAsianDude]

Sigh why do people use the logica that Han>Huns>Romans.

They didnt even fight the same type of huns nor were the romans the similar romans during romes golden age.

The huns that the chinese faught wernt united, they also live over 400 years before the atillas hun army. Rome also faught a more europeon based hun army. Anyways in 432 AD Rua the hun united the huns. He died soon after that. Pretty soon Atilla would become the ruler of the huns. Therefore there was over 450 year difference between what the chinese faught and when attilla came to power with a united hun army. Furthermore Rome was already in decay during the time Atilla came to power. Most of the roman army wasnt even roman. Rome instead hired barbarian mercinaries to become the protectors of romes. They didnt fight like romans, they faught like the barbarians they conquered. Rome was also split up between east and west empires because rome was already in decay. The huns did defeat the romans in several battles. They however defeated rome with barbarian mercinaries rather than golden age rome using the legionairres of the past.

Therefore its easy to see the difference, you cant conclude that han>huns>romans since they were all different from different times. Barbarian mercinary rome faught a united hun army under atilla over 450 years after the han faught a different kind of hun army. The huns conquered primitive mongolian tribes, does that make the chinese greater than ghenghis kahns mongol army? I think not, that logic is rather faulty wouldnt you agree.

[totalylegal]

Sigh why do people use the logica that Han>Huns>Romans.

They didnt even fight the same type of huns nor were the romans the similar romans during romes golden age.

The huns that the chinese faught wernt united, they also live over 400 years before the atillas hun army. Rome also faught a more europeon based hun army. Anyways in 432 AD Rua the hun united the huns. He died soon after that. Pretty soon Atilla would become the ruler of the huns. Therefore there was over 450 year difference between what the chinese faught and when attilla came to power with a united hun army. Furthermore Rome was already in decay during the time Atilla came to power. Most of the roman army wasnt even roman. Rome instead hired barbarian mercinaries to become the protectors of romes. They didnt fight like romans, they faught like the barbarians they conquered. Rome was also split up between east and west empires because rome was already in decay. The huns did defeat the romans in several battles. They however defeated rome with barbarian mercinaries rather than golden age rome using the legionairres of the past.

Therefore its easy to see the difference, you cant conclude that han>huns>romans since they were all different from different times. Barbarian mercinary rome faught a united hun army under atilla over 450 years after the han faught a different kind of hun army. The huns conquered primitive mongolian tribes, does that make the chinese greater than ghenghis kahns mongol army? I think not, that logic is rather faulty wouldnt you agree.

the fast was that huns in china were united,and hans broken them apart,only the northern huns managed went europe,so the european huns were infact a broken tribe.

[Col]

Shaolin monks train their martial arts for possibly the longest amount of time. If i remember correctly, they start with 3 years of fist, then 2 years with legs, 4 year with swords, and so on... I read that from an article a long time ago. Again, you're totally pointing your bias toward the acrobatic flips. Those aren't the only things they know...

If your idea of combat is only practicability, then you're wrong. Yes, karate, taibo, and various other arts are straight forward and look powerful, but form is also important. Chinese martial arts, from my experience, blend form, practicability, and artistic value into one form. Why? That's because i asked my tai-chi teacher this one time during practice. I was asking him how all these forms, besides strengthening your body, could possibly do in a real life situation. He asked me to throw a punch, and which i did. He used the exact same move he just taught and knocked me oof balance!

Yes i know tai-chi isn't shaolin, but i'm using it as an example.

[Mangafan2]

Then why talk about karate if you don't have experience in it?

[Col]

^ I'm using them as an example. Can you read sir? I've neverlearned karate, but i've seen it in action.

[EvilAsianDude]

the fast was that huns in china were united,and hans broken them apart,only the northern huns managed went europe,so the european huns were infact a broken tribe.

No it was not, the huns that the Chinese faught were different from the huns that the barbarian roman faught. My main point behind this is to show how faulty the logic of han > hun > romans is. Mainly because their was a long stretch of time between what the hans faught and what the romans faught when they met atilla. It was also roman barbarian army that did the fighting. Rather than the real roman army of the past.

Shaolin monks train their martial arts for possibly the longest amount of time. If i remember correctly, they start with 3 years of fist, then 2 years with legs, 4 year with swords, and so on... I read that from an article a long time ago. Again, you're totally pointing your bias toward the acrobatic flips. Those aren't the only things they know...

If your idea of combat is only practicability, then you're wrong. Yes, karate, taibo, and various other arts are straight forward and look powerful, but form is also important. Chinese martial arts, from my experience, blend form, practicability, and artistic value into one form. Why? That's because i asked my tai-chi teacher this one time during practice. I was asking him how all these forms, besides strengthening your body, could possibly do in a real life situation. He asked me to throw a punch, and which i did. He used the exact same move he just taught and knocked me oof balance!

Yes i know tai-chi isn't shaolin, but i'm using it as an example.


ok let me get some facts straight

Shaolin monks do train a lot. However what they train in is controversial when it comes to actual combat or warfare. Go look at the training, they do a lot of stuff like flips and $hit. Now im not saying that I can beat a monk in hand to hand fighting. Id get my @$$ kicked. However if you give me a shield and a sword ill murder a shaolin monk with no effort. Or give me a crossbow and ill murder a couple of them with no effort as well. And then go to jail but that’s besides the point.

Also do not include taibo as a "art". Taibo isnt a martial art. Its kickboxing aerobics for fat ladies. And no matter how good you are with your fists do you honestly think a fist user will do good against someone on a horse with a bow and arrow? Shaolin monks cant run 40-50 mph like horses. Nor can they dodge or grab arrows like they do in movies. Therefore shaolin monks sure wont defeat cavalry archers. What about the enemy having a shield that covers their entire body + a stabbing sword that can strike several times a second? Or an armored knight with a lance and long sword? Shaolin swords wont slash through plate armor, not even a katana can do that.

The shields of certain armies for example used wood with metal rims so that the blades of enemy warriors would stick to the shield making the enemy weaponless. Listen, the shaolin monks wont own everyone. They might own certain people but that’s about it. Have you actually seen them fight? Have they actually proven their combat prowess in a real war rather than on average joes? Did they do well against the manchus? They actually didn’t put much of a fight. They were just slaughtered.

Wheras 300 mere Spartans killed thousands and thousands of armored Persians at the battle of thermoplye before they were ambushed and killed. The bodies of the enemy were so high that they created large mounds, the spartans had difficulty seeing the spartan army due to the dead persians.

Do you think shaolin monks would be able to kill thousands of Persians. Because that persian army had bows, sabers and shields and spears. Do you think a shaolin monk would own a spartan for example? Will the monks do better than the spartans if they were in a similar situation?

Do you think a shaolin monk can beat someone with a shield and a really fast weapon? What about a cavalry archer, or a knight with armor that’s immune to pretty much any bladed shaolin weapon? What about someone with a crossbow?

Shaolin monks are a romantic warrior. They can defeat the average thug but when its time to go to war China will utilize its large population who does the fighting.

This post has been edited by EvilAsianDude: Sep 3 2005, 05:20 AM

[Col]

The Spartans were heavy infantry hoplites while as the Persians were mostly unarmored light infantry armed with nothing but a sword or a bow. They were in a narrow pass of some sort, so the phalanx formation worked to the maximum effectiveness and the terrain offered much protection against the arrow storm from the Persian formation. The Spartans were good, but they were still eventually defeated by the Romans =P

[UnregisteredUser]

oops, wrong thread.

This post has been edited by UnregisteredUser: Sep 4 2005, 01:17 AM

[EvilAsianDude]

The Spartans were heavy infantry hoplites while as the Persians were mostly unarmored light infantry armed with nothing but a sword or a bow.  They were in a narrow pass of some sort, so the phalanx formation worked to the maximum effectiveness and the terrain offered much protection against the arrow storm from the Persian formation.  The Spartans were good, but they were still eventually defeated by the Romans =P

Wrong the persians sent in their 10,000 immortals. These were the persian elites, they were armed with shields, spear and sword. More importantly though the spartans did superb against the persians elites. Where is your shaolin monk argument? I see that its gone now. The monks would have been slaughtered in a instant.

The spartans were indeed conquered by the romans. The romans did use similar formations as the greek phalanx(they used the testudo). Ever heard of the term Pyrrhic victory? Well when the greeks faught the romans it was a pyrrhic victory for the greeks. Although they won most of the battles they lost the war. Mainly because the romans were too numerous and each battle the greeks faught against the romans costed too much greek lives. The greeks realized that even with all their victories they would still lose. in fact the term pyrrhic victory comes from the greek vs roman war. After the greeks surrendered the romans became the greeks(greek gods, greek military strategy, greek art, architecture and even food etc).

Thats besides the point, do you honestly think a group of shaolin monks will fare well against greek hoplite or roman legionairre during romes prime time?