Samurai vs Roman Soldier Options

[Col]

You're being unreasonable. Monks are martial artists, they do not belong in a military engagement where tactics, mobility, and skills come to a factor. I did not deny that the monks will get slaughtered by any sizable military forces, so what's your point? One on one, they'll beat anyone. Against an organized military on the open field with actual coordination, tactics, doctrine, formation, and specialization, and not to mention disadvantages in equipment and numbers, well what the hell do you think would happen? you're twisting my words here

The Persians had around 300,000 troops, and they prefer long-range combat more than melee. Plus Leonidas did not only bring 300 Spartans, but 7000 Greek allies as well. When the battle was going badly, he ordered the 7000 or so force to withdraw, and held a narrow pass with 300 heavily armored hoplites in phalanx formation against the persians. In the narrow pass terrain, the phalanx worked miracles, and Xerxes could not bring the bulk of his force upon the defenders. Xerxes' troops were over confident, thus resulting in a can of whoop @$$ from the Spartans. I'm sure you know a frontal assault on a phalanx formation quite stupid, especially at the time when the Spartans were masters in phalanx warfare.
Plus, did you really think that the 300 men fought all 10,000 Immortals and 2304893904394834903 Medes at the same time?

Once the Spartans were flanked, they were immeidately slaughtered. Your point is? I do not deny the Spartans were excellent warriors, but like with the Shaolin monks argument, it's simply stupid and ridiculous to pit them into hopeless situations. The main reason why the Greeks lost on the battlefield against the Romans was due to a radical change in tactics. The Greek armies were stubbornly inflexible and immobile, while as the Romans employed flexibility, mobility, and firepower at the same time.

Btw, did i mention how short spears + swords < long @$$ spears? the Immortals might be good, but both the terrain and equipment, plus the Spartan bad asses, worked to their utter disadvantage (IMG:http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

This post has been edited by Col: Sep 4 2005, 11:12 AM

[vacuous]

In its glory days the roman army was amazing. It was the ancient western worlds first profesional army. The soldiers trained for 5 hours a day plus had numerous small frontier wars to stiffen them. The reliance the romans placed on their troops shows their worth. The romans rarely fortified their river frontiers but instead used legions as deterence. These were almost always outnumbered but still they mostly prevailed. The sheer size of the empire with all its multiple borders was only defended by 300 000 core troops.

Romans found protection in their shield walls but a look at their armour and weapon of choice shows how mobile they were. They left their arms free and wore light armour of leather to allow for maximum dexterity. With their short swords, light armour and vigourous training they must have been incredibly agile and skilled single fighters. Deadly as a group and deadly 1 on 1.

[Mangafan2]

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

Seeing it isn't enough so don't use it as example......sir

[Col]

^ Seeing it as in having a friend "practicing" his moves on me

[EvilAsianDude]

But then soilders happen to be martial arts. You learn martial arts to fight. Spartans learned to use spear and shield to fight. Thus they are martial artist.You continue to persist that they will own anyone 1:1. You havent even backed up your claim. All you’ve done is claim that those monks train for long periods of time. You act as if Chinese monks are the only warriors in the world who train for long periods of time. Its ridiculous.

Again you still havent addressed how and why shaolin monks will own everyone in 1:1 combat. What can a monk do against a Mongol horse archer for example? What can he do against a roman legionairre whos armed with lloricated metal armor and a shield that covers his entire body? What can a monk do against a master bow or crossbow user? Or a fully armored knight on horseback? Please tell me, because in real life monks don’t fly, nor can they split trees in half with their staves. One finger push ups are great, too bad they mean jack in combat. Some weakling will easily do more damage with a spear than a monk could with his finger. What can a monk do against someone with a bow or cross bow? What about someone whos firing arrows on horseback. What about a fully armored knight with a lance charging at full speed on his horse?

And you bring up the fact that terrain and equipment made the difference. Well that’s exactly the point, some warriors are better suited for certain environments, some have better equipment. A roman legionairre for example wore metal armor, metal helm, a tower shield, carried a glaive and a stabbing sword. What did the monk have? Also the Persians preferred short range over long range if you studied proper history. They used large numbers to overwhelm and eat up enemy armies in massive waves. Very similar to the armies of china. I also don’t need a history lesson on the battle of thermoplye. What my main point however was that a mere 300 Spartans held off and slaughtered many times their numbers of Persians. Those Persians faught in similar manners like the Chinese. And again the shaolin monks were never the elite warriors sent onto the front. All they did was practice martial arts, become famous then get massacred by the manchus. The Persians losing so many troops had more to do with battle tactics, formation and equipment.

Now quit wasting my time and tell me exactly how shaolin monks will “own” everyone. The only time they actually own anyone is in HK movies. Didn’t a couple of muay thai fighters beat up a bunch of shaolin monks in a arena fight involving fists and kicks? If that’s the case then shaolin monks sure as hell cant beat professional warriors trained with weapons+who have armor on.

I will obviously get my @$$ kicked by a monk, but if I was trained by the Mongols for a few years id have no problem ripping a Mongol apart with a composite bow while im on a horse.

[Col]

^ Did you even read what i just said? Didn't i mention they'd get slaughtered by a professional army? Skill-wise, yes, they're among the best since they practically train their entire life. Equipment-wise, you might as well kiss their asses goodbye. Also wanna make this clear, Buddhist monks =/= Shaolin monks. I thought i made it perfectly clear. Your argument, to me, is as if you're implying to pitch a horse archer against a tanker in an MBT. It's like saying a n00b is the ultimate badass when he had a machine gun gunning down a hoplite.

Why a monk would own anyone on one-on-one combat, provided that the terms they're fighting on is about par? They have intense discipline and control, not to mention strength, endurance, and agility. You thik a flip is easy to do? You think throwing a punch that fast and hard is that easy to do? I think it's you who's blinded in a weird way by whatever HK movie mentality. If i were you i'd treat something that's passed and has survived along since the ancient times with a little respect.

And the Greeks did not number 300 alone, they actually had 7300. 300 Spartans plus 7000 Greek allies. Skills did play a factor yes, but do you even know what a phalanx is? Equipment, tactics, and terrain played a huge part in that battle. The skills just made it easier to kill Persians.

You quit wasting my time and actually read what i said. Again, i didn't mean to sound hostile, but your arrogant tone's irking me.

This post has been edited by Col: Sep 5 2005, 06:58 PM

[EvilAsianDude]

Professional army or not, warriors are still practioners of arts. The mongols are a professional army, they also kicked as with the horse and bow. What can a shaolin monk do against someone whos on a horse and a master of the bow? Equipment matters, you cant give a shaolin monk a weapon he does not train in nor has access to. A shaolin monk wont own everyone.Shaolin monks also faught during the same time mongol horse archers came about. Now your saying that its unfair to compare the two? It just happens so that horse archers from all over the world are just as legit in combat as shaolin monks. What about archers or crossbow men then? What about fully armored knights or other warriors? And your reasons on why the shaolin monk would own everyone is just sad.

Heres what you claim

1)They have intense displine and control
2)They have strength, endurance and agility
3)They can do flips, and doing flips is hard so they must be good fighters
4)They can throw a punch fast and hard which isnt easy.

anyone who has a shred of common sense knows how stupid and feeble your arguments are. There are hundreds of different types of warriors who have discipline in control. Thats the entire freakin point of armies.

You also state th at shaolin monks have strength, endurance and agility. So does that mean all other non shaolin warriors have no strength, endurance and agility? What kind of argument are you putting up? Wearing plate armor on a horse and wielding a sword required tremendous strength. Practicing with the katana built much strength. Drawing a 150 pound bow requires a lot of strength. Marching dozens of miles a day while fighting for hours like a roman required much endurance. Nimble sword experts and fencers needed agility to kill their opponents.

Next you bring up the the baffable logic that because monks can do flips(which is hard to do) they must be good fighters and own everyone. Yeah while we're at it lets hire a bunch of circus clowns to defeat any professional army in the world. Afterall doing flips = kicking @$$ right? WRONG. What does flips have to do with anything? Will some 12 year old 4 foot tall romanian gymnast girl be able to kick the @$$ of a merciless mongol warrior?

Finally you state that shaolin monks can own everyone because they can throw punches fast and hard(which isnt easy). Ok whatever dude, there are millions upon millions of people on this earth who can throw a punch hard. A shaolin monk can punch me for all I care. Ill just shoot him down with a crossbow. Why do you still continue to insist that a shaolin monk will own everyone. Give me a reason(and a decent one rather than a stupid one) on why a shaolin monk will own everyone.

And yes the shaolin monastry survived for a long time before it was burnt down by the manchus. Mainly because in other times of war it wasnt really targetted or it was just ignored. Therefore its nothing impressive at all. Egypts been conquered and invaded many times over, the pyramids still exist.

And I think I know a lot more about the phalanx than youll ever know. The same skill, equipment and tactics that made a spartan do well can still be applied in a 1:1 situation between monk and spartan. You seem to not realize that.

[learning to Fly]

Professional army or not, warriors are still practioners of arts. The mongols are a professional army, they also kicked as with the horse and bow. What can a shaolin monk do against someone whos on a horse and a master of the bow? Equipment matters, you cant give a shaolin monk a weapon he does not train in nor has access to. A shaolin monk wont own everyone.Shaolin monks also faught during the same time mongol horse archers came about. Now your saying that its unfair to compare the two? It just happens so that horse archers from all over the world are just as legit in combat as shaolin monks. What about archers or crossbow men then? What about fully armored knights or other warriors? And your reasons on why the shaolin monk would own everyone is just sad.

Heres what you claim

1)They have intense displine and control
2)They have strength, endurance and agility
3)They can do flips, and doing flips is hard so they must be good fighters
4)They can throw a punch fast and hard which isnt easy.

anyone who has a shred of common sense knows how stupid and feeble your arguments are. There are hundreds of different types of warriors who have discipline in control. Thats the entire freakin point of armies.

You also state th at shaolin monks have strength, endurance and agility. So does that mean all other non shaolin warriors have no strength, endurance and agility? What kind of argument are you putting up? Wearing plate armor on a horse and wielding a sword required tremendous strength. Practicing with the katana built much strength. Drawing a 150 pound bow requires a lot of strength. Marching dozens of miles a day while fighting for hours like a roman required much endurance. Nimble sword experts and fencers needed agility to kill their opponents.

Next you bring up the the baffable logic that because monks can do flips(which is hard to do) they must be good fighters and own everyone. Yeah while we're at it lets hire a bunch of circus clowns to defeat any professional army in the world. Afterall doing flips = kicking @$$ right? WRONG. What does flips have to do with anything? Will some 12 year old 4 foot tall romanian gymnast girl be able to kick the @$$ of a merciless mongol warrior?

Finally you state that shaolin monks can own everyone because they can throw punches fast and hard(which isnt easy). Ok whatever dude, there are millions upon millions of people on this earth who can throw a punch hard. A shaolin monk can punch me for all I care. Ill just shoot him down with a crossbow. Why do you still continue to insist that a shaolin monk will own everyone. Give me a reason(and a decent one rather than a stupid one) on why a shaolin monk will own everyone.

And yes the shaolin monastry survived for a long time before it was burnt down by the manchus. Mainly because in other times of war it wasnt really targetted or it was just ignored. Therefore its nothing impressive at all. Egypts been conquered and invaded many times over, the pyramids still exist.

And I think I know a lot more about the phalanx than youll ever know. The same skill, equipment and tactics that made a spartan do well can still be applied in a 1:1 situation between monk and spartan. You seem to not realize that.

who cares,you didnt lived there at the time,infact nobody has.

[EvilAsianDude]

I care and thats obviously why im replying

I may not have lived hundreds of years ago but theres enough information about the subject to start a debate. In fact thats how we deal with history. And in my conclusion shaolin monks arnt anywhere close to being the greatest.

[learning to Fly]

I care and thats obviously why im replying

I may not have lived hundreds of years ago but theres enough information about the subject to start a debate. In fact thats how we deal with history. And in my conclusion shaolin monks arnt anywhere close to being the greatest.

oneman's opnion.

i think romans were overrated.

what information? who wrote the roman's history? ofcuz themself did.

This post has been edited by learning to Fly: Sep 7 2005, 11:32 AM

[EvilAsianDude]

I care and thats obviously why im replying

I may not have lived hundreds of years ago but theres enough information about the subject to start a debate. In fact thats how we deal with history. And in my conclusion shaolin monks arnt anywhere close to being the greatest.

oneman's opnion.

i think romans were overrated.

what information? who wrote the roman's history? ofcuz themself did.

ofcuz what?

Good for you if you think romans were overrated, whats your point? Shaolin monks wont own everyone and I have evidence on that. You stating romans as overrated is an opinion and I really dont care if its your opinion.

[learning to Fly]

I care and thats obviously why im replying

I may not have lived hundreds of years ago but theres enough information about the subject to start a debate. In fact thats how we deal with history. And in my conclusion shaolin monks arnt anywhere close to being the greatest.

oneman's opnion.

i think romans were overrated.

what information? who wrote the roman's history? ofcuz themself did.

ofcuz what?

Good for you if you think romans were overrated, whats your point? Shaolin monks wont own everyone and I have evidence on that. You stating romans as overrated is an opinion and I really dont care if its your opinion.

good for you if you think shaolin monks won win everyone,whats your point?

what evidence do you have? living roman soldiers? or ashes or perhaps bones. you might as all go dig up graves of roman soldier,since you adore them so much,perhaps they are still fighting underground (IMG:http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/icon_wink.gif)

you stating that shaolin monks are useless is an opnion and i reall dont care if its your opinion.

This post has been edited by learning to Fly: Sep 7 2005, 09:15 PM

[Wokoo]

oneman's opnion.
i think romans were overrated.
what information? who wrote the roman's history? ofcuz themself did.

So you are trying to say what? Just look at the facts, who made a big Empire, the Romans or the Shaolin monks?

[kaizen]

oneman's opnion.

i think romans were overrated.

what information? who wrote the roman's history? ofcuz themself did.

And who wrote the chinese history? Themselves of course.

So in logical way, the Hans were overrated also.

This post has been edited by kaizen: Sep 8 2005, 07:02 PM

[Col]

Professional army or not, warriors are still practioners of arts. The mongols are a professional army, they also kicked as with the horse and bow. What can a shaolin monk do against someone whos on a horse and a master of the bow? Equipment matters, you cant give a shaolin monk a weapon he does not train in nor has access to. A shaolin monk wont own everyone.Shaolin monks also faught during the same time mongol horse archers came about. Now your saying that its unfair to compare the two? It just happens so that horse archers from all over the world are just as legit in combat as shaolin monks. What about archers or crossbow men then? What about fully armored knights or other warriors? And your reasons on why the shaolin monk would own everyone is just sad.

Heres what you claim

1)They have intense displine and control
2)They have strength, endurance and agility
3)They can do flips, and doing flips is hard so they must be good fighters
4)They can throw a punch fast and hard which isnt easy.

anyone who has a shred of common sense knows how stupid and feeble your arguments are. There are hundreds of different types of warriors who have discipline in control. Thats the entire freakin point of armies.

You also state th at shaolin monks have strength, endurance and agility. So does that mean all other non shaolin warriors have no strength, endurance and agility? What kind of argument are you putting up? Wearing plate armor on a horse and wielding a sword required tremendous strength. Practicing with the katana built much strength. Drawing a 150 pound bow requires a lot of strength. Marching dozens of miles a day while fighting for hours like a roman required much endurance. Nimble sword experts and fencers needed agility to kill their opponents.

Next you bring up the the baffable logic that because monks can do flips(which is hard to do) they must be good fighters and own everyone. Yeah while we're at it lets hire a bunch of circus clowns to defeat any professional army in the world. Afterall doing flips = kicking @$$ right? WRONG. What does flips have to do with anything? Will some 12 year old 4 foot tall romanian gymnast girl be able to kick the @$$ of a merciless mongol warrior?

Finally you state that shaolin monks can own everyone because they can throw punches fast and hard(which isnt easy). Ok whatever dude, there are millions upon millions of people on this earth who can throw a punch hard. A shaolin monk can punch me for all I care. Ill just shoot him down with a crossbow. Why do you still continue to insist that a shaolin monk will own everyone. Give me a reason(and a decent one rather than a stupid one) on why a shaolin monk will own everyone.

And yes the shaolin monastry survived for a long time before it was burnt down by the manchus. Mainly because in other times of war it wasnt really targetted or it was just ignored. Therefore its nothing impressive at all. Egypts been conquered and invaded many times over, the pyramids still exist.

And I think I know a lot more about the phalanx than youll ever know. The same skill, equipment and tactics that made a spartan do well can still be applied in a 1:1 situation between monk and spartan. You seem to not realize that.

See my machinegun statement, that's all i've got left to say. Obviously you're selectively reading. Try reading my entire post or something geesh.

And your argument for Mongol warriors is completely stupid. Hello? Horse-riding and archery were the Mongol's way of life; they've been training their entire life time to use the bow, other weapons, and ride on horses because it's their way of life in the plains. I would like to see you practice for 4 years and try to own one of them. You see why the Mongols were that good now? they train for a life time. And your circuit suit alone is not enough evidence to dismiss the skills of shaolin martial artists. Your double standard is baffling.

This post has been edited by Col: Sep 9 2005, 09:58 AM

[learning to Fly]

oneman's opnion.
i think romans were overrated.
what information? who wrote the roman's history? ofcuz themself did.

So you are trying to say what? Just look at the facts, who made a big Empire, the Romans or the Shaolin monks?

oneman's opnion.

i think romans were overrated.

what information? who wrote the roman's history? ofcuz themself did.

And who wrote the chinese history? Themselves of course.

So in logical way, the Hans were overrated also.

no matter,china is still 100 times bigger than italy(aka rome)

[Col]

oneman's opnion.
i think romans were overrated.
what information? who wrote the roman's history? ofcuz themself did.

So you are trying to say what? Just look at the facts, who made a big Empire, the Romans or the Shaolin monks?

Why the hell would buddhist monks want to make an empire?

[Wokoo]

no matter,china is still 100 times bigger than italy(aka rome)

You really make no sense, and now why you talk about Italy, what has Italy to do with Rome? Yes they have Roman blood but so many Eruopeans and even Arabians, you don't know a crap.

I guess some ppl are taking this for a fight btw "west" and "east" because the topic is about the Roman soldier and the Samurai, if now China is bigger then Italy what the hell that has to do with the post?

This post has been edited by Wokoo: Sep 10 2005, 12:42 PM

[Wokoo]

oneman's opnion.
i think romans were overrated.
what information? who wrote the roman's history? ofcuz themself did.

So you are trying to say what? Just look at the facts, who made a big Empire, the Romans or the Shaolin monks?

Why the hell would buddhist monks want to make an empire?

I don't care why, you can't paragonate an army with an Empire, any Empire, to an army of skilled monks, serious, this is like a kid's talk.

[EvilAsianDude]

good for you if you think shaolin monks won win everyone,whats your point?

If you actualy knew how to read, I think I clearly implied that Shaolin monks wont OWN EVERYONE rather than shaolin monks will lose to everyone..

what evidence do you have? living roman soldiers? or ashes or perhaps bones.

Strategy, equipment setup, and the use of these weapons. It doesnt take much brain power to realize that someone with a stick will lose to a expert archer on a horse.

you might as all go dig up graves of roman soldier,since you adore them so much,perhaps they are still fighting underground  FPRIVATE "TYPE=PICT;ALT=icon_wink.gif"

you stating that shaolin monks are useless is an opnion and i reall dont care if its your opinion.

There are records and manuals of how the romans faught. Even today centuries after rome fell we still know what weapons and armor they wore, their strategies and even the food they ate or how long they trained. Now then so whats the point of my post? It was to argue against the moronic statement that shaolin monks are gods? You interefere and say "who cares". If you dont care then why the hell are you butting in? Oh thats right, judging by the pictures in your posts your pro chinese. Sorry if I hurt your fragile chinese ego. Now that I think about it the romans would lose against the shaolin monks. Provided its 1000 shaolin monks vs 1 roman. Cause we all know that the chinese cant win wars unless they outnumber their opponents significantly. Even then they still lose to much smaller numbers.

See my machinegun statement, that's all i've got left to say. Obviously you're selectively reading. Try reading my entire post or something geesh.

I already have, your just giving excuses to not reply to everything ive stated. hello you havent proven jack about shaolin monks owning everyone. Seriously how ridiculous are you. Stating that doing flips and punching hard is something special?

And your argument for Mongol warriors is completely stupid. Hello? Horse-riding and archery were the Mongol's way of life; they've been training their entire life time to use the bow, other weapons, and ride on horses because it's their way of life in the plains. I would like to see you practice for 4 years and try to own one of them.

Sorry but I NEVER EVER STATED that I would own a typical mongol warrior much less every other type of warrior out there. Funny thing is that you however stated that shaolin monks would own everyone. Im not a shaolin monk, im a ordinary average dude. According to you shaolin monks are supposed to own the mongols. Now please tell me exactly how the shaolin monks are going to own a mongol cavalry archer? Heck tell me how a shaolin monk can handle other non mongol cavalry archers in china, korea and japan?

You see why the Mongols were that good now? they train for a life time. And your circuit suit alone is not enough evidence to dismiss the skills of shaolin martial artists. Your double standard is baffling.

Wrong, your just ignoring everything ive said so far and instead replying with filler material. And besides that, are you now telling me that shaolin monks would lose to the mongols? Well then I guess we're making some progress. That means shaolin monks wont own everyone. Please tell me what armor and weapons the
There are alot of professional warriors who trained all there lives. Look at the spartans their entire culture was based on the military. Shortly after they are born the babies are brought infront of elders. These elders would look for any defects or weaknessess in the babies. If they were weak they were left to die in the cliffs. If not then they were sent to the military as children. They would then train and be disciplined harshly. The spartans ate mostly one type of food. It was a red broth of blood and meat. They ate this all day everyday to build toughness. Discipline was so harsh that the children wanted to prove themselves. One child who didnt want to be caught stealing a fox put a fox under his shirt. rather than confessing he let the fox eat the insides of his stomach until the kid died. Or in another case a child was willing to get himself whipped just to toughen him up. The kid was whipped so many times that he died just trying to prove himself. The spartans are just one example of the dozens of warriors that can easilly own a shaolin monk. Look at the equipment, armor and shield they used. What makes you think a shaolin monk can do so well? Oh let me guess, they can do backflips and punch fast and hard(which is difficult to do<sarcasm>).