Samurai vs Roman Soldier Options

[Col]

OMFG I've had it with you. Go up and re-read what i've said. They would own anyone if the conditions that they're fighting under are close to par. Go get a dictionary to see what it means. I won't repeat myself. Did i ever say the monks are gods? Stop twisting my words. they're humans, and of course they have limitations.

And to destroy your HK movie statement; Shaolin was reowned even before the invention of TV and modernization in the East. After all, it made itself into world history books. And what makes you think backflips and $hit are all the monks could do? You're so incredibly biased i swear with the mentality that you're right and everything else = wrong.

So you're reverting your mongol statement right now and retorting with Spartans? I've never denied the greatness of the Spartans did I? Or are you trying to twist my words like you always do?

Simple comparison:

Spartans trained since childhood

Mongols trained since childhood

Some Shaolin monks train since childhood; but all train for the rest of their lives like the two mentioned above.

Now what makes you think a Spartan can beat a monk? Oh, just based on the Illiad and the Battle of Thermopylae where 7300 Greeks held off hordes of Persians with complete terrain and equipment advantage. I'm sure child-abuse would make great warriors. that type of training was to test the children their bravery, endurance, and resourcefullness, no where in terms of fighting skills and abilities. Afterall, the Spartans are reowned for their discipline and bravery

The monks' credibility at least got thousands of years of history plus some documentaries, videos, and articles--stuff that your mind probably closed itself to.

Just to quote something you said

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.

Sorry but I NEVER EVER STATED that I would own a typical mongol warrior much less every other type of warrior out there.

And don't twist my words around. I didn't say a Shaolin Monk would own a mongol. If they fight in melee, the monk would most likely win. Ranged combat; the monk is as good as a target. Your rationale of equipment = skills is completely beyond me. Each type of warriors have their own specialties, but since the original topic here was Samurai vs Legionnaire, i consider that as melee unless the original thread starter intended it as a match between mounted Samurai and Roman Auxillary Cavalry.

If you really want to play the stupid equipment game:

Fully Armored Hopelites in Phalanx > Monks

Mounted Mongol Warriors > Monks

Legionnaries with Pillums > Monks and hoplites

random person with a machinegun > all

Monks > all in hand-to-hand combat and certain melee weaponry.

Happy now?

[Wokoo]

Simple comparison:

Spartans trained since childhood

Mongols trained since childhood

Some Shaolin monks train since childhood; but all train for the rest of their lives like the two mentioned above.

No offence but this means be stupid, do you know the differece btw training in a monasterium as a monk and trainig in a battlefield as a legionaire? Serious just shut up pls.

[Wokoo]

And don't twist my words around.  I didn't say a Shaolin Monk would own a mongol.  If they fight in melee, the monk would most likely win.  Ranged combat; the monk is as good as a target.  Your rationale of equipment = skills is completely beyond me.  Each type of warriors have their own specialties, but since the original topic here was Samurai vs Legionnaire, i consider that as melee unless the original thread starter intended it as a match between mounted Samurai and Roman Auxillary Cavalry.

You are talking about "roman auxillary cavalry", but i never heard of that if you can explain what it is. By the way your fantasy army wont even get close to roman cause the ogranes and balliste would make them all die even before to realize they lost from the begin. Have a reserch about this "roman auxillary cavalry".

[Col]

Sup Wokoo, I've got no problems with you. But if you wanna barge in like a headless fly and be an @$$, two can play the same game.

Thanks for selectively reading btw. YOU do not know how they train at the monastery, but at least i have an idea of how they train--at least the modern version anyways for people who do not wish to join the order, but just to learn the martial arts themselves. Do yourself a favor and shut up.

As for Roman auxillary cavalry; the Romans were notorious for its infantry, and their cavalry clearly sucked. They hired auxillaries, aka people from various regions but not citizens of Rome, as their Cavalrymen. They mostly used Gaulish and Sarmatians to form the bulk of their limited cavalry forces. And if you haven't noticed yet, i was referring to the original topic itself about legionnaire vs samurai. Do yourself a favor and shut up before you embarrass yourself.

And yeah, don't try to double post. You can get in trouble for that.

This post has been edited by Col: Sep 11 2005, 02:24 PM

[hkneo2001]

u r verusing 2 tht are in different eras.... so there will always be unfair advantage....
but with all say.... Roman Army is great but to match the samurai... it all depends who actually leads the army.... if it is Caesar... i hav no doubt tht romans will win....n roman soilders will never fight one on one.... cos it just doens't work....n this isn't a boxing ring either.....

as for greeks, if lead by ALexander the Great... they are just invinicble.... but their armor is way too light..... against the arrows of the samurai...but u must take into account tht it is history that the greeks lost extremely easily against the romans.... as their formation is rigid and not as flexible as the romans.......

spartans are the best.... but then again.... how good they are is definitely exaggerated throught myths and $hit......\

(IMG:http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/embarassedlaugh.gif) 2
neo

[hkneo2001]

Now what makes you think a Spartan can beat a monk?  Oh, just based on the Illiad and the Battle of Thermopylae where 7300 Greeks held off hordes of Persians with complete terrain and equipment advantage.  I'm sure child-abuse would make great warriors.  that type of training was to test the children their bravery, endurance, and resourcefullness, no where in terms of fighting skills and abilities.  Afterall, the Spartans are reowned for their discipline and bravery

btw it was 500 spartans......n bravery n discipline alone can not win them so much battles against the odds.... despite being exaggerated... by the Spartan myth... they are without doubt great fighters..... this was reinforced in Xenophon n to an extent Plutarch..

(IMG:http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/embarassedlaugh.gif) 2
neo

[hkneo2001]

You are talking about "roman auxillary cavalry", but i never heard of that if you can explain what it is. By the way your fantasy army wont even get close to roman cause the ogranes and balliste would make them all die even before to realize they lost from the begin. Have a reserch about this "roman auxillary cavalry".

As much as i do not want to admit.... having studied roman history to great degrees..... Coo is right bout the roman cavalry... n it doens't matter wat u call it btw.... they aren't as good and more often than not Caesar in his commentaries always reinforce how he heavily relied on mercenaries..... to make up for this.....aspect of weakness in the roman legions....

neo

[hkneo2001]

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

the main reason y they were defeated by the Romans... was cos their formation was rigid n lack flexibility...... whille the Romans copied alot from the greeks, they modify it.... but then again.... u can't realli compare... as by the time they fought together.... Greeks was already at the end of an era.... whereas the Romans...were at their almost peak.....

(IMG:http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/embarassedlaugh.gif) 2

neo

[hkneo2001]

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.

no the weren't... maybe a selected few.. but most werent.....

[Wokoo]

Sup Wokoo, I've got no problems with you.  But if you wanna barge in like a headless fly and be an @$$, two can play the same game.

Thanks for selectively reading btw.  YOU do not know how they train at the monastery, but at least i have an idea of how they train--at least the modern version anyways for people who do not wish to join the order, but just to learn the martial arts themselves.  Do yourself a favor and shut up.

As for Roman auxillary cavalry; the Romans were notorious for its infantry, and their cavalry clearly sucked.  They hired auxillaries, aka people from various regions but not citizens of Rome, as their Cavalrymen.  They mostly used Gaulish and Sarmatians to form the bulk of their limited cavalry forces.  And if you haven't noticed yet, i was referring to the original topic itself about legionnaire vs samurai.  Do yourself a favor and shut up before you embarrass yourself.

And yeah, don't try to double post.  You can get in trouble for that.

AHAH you mad? The roman cavalry was pretty good, it was really small in the quantity but an elite, find me a better cavarly at that time. Don't forget it was around the year 10. Basically the rich who could afford a total and full armor in iron to protect the body were supposed to join it. And they used to attack thousands of barbarians from the back. And you say it wasn't good? Go to read some history books pls, it's clear you don't know a crap.

Also martial arts do $hit against a weapons, get it. Also Romans NEVER hired non-Romans citizen for the war, it was an army of few thousand of soldiers against big army, and the good of their skill made them win any battle. Only in the later period Romans started to hire barbarians and mercenaries because the enemies were more and more, and the Romans even started to drop some lands like the britan, that was an uncivilized land at the time.

Don't talk without know anything thx

[Wokoo]

Also in case you don't know the Romans used the Cataphracts from the year 100 about, it wasn't introducted from the Byzantine Roman empire, and the Cataphracts used to fight also with the bow, they were totally covered with iron, and so the horse, This unity was then used from the Byzantine Roman empire for over 1000 years more and you say the Roman cavalry wasn't good.

[hkneo2001]

Also in case you don't know the Romans used the Cataphracts from the year 100 about, it wasn't introducted from the Byzantine Roman empire, and the Cataphracts used to fight also with the bow, they were totally covered with iron, and so the horse,  This unity was then used from the Byzantine Roman empire for over 1000 years more and you say the Roman cavalry wasn't good.

bro.... Romans used cataphracts onli very late in their history and mainly in the east under the emperor Hadrian, and around 117 AD!!!!..... at a time... when the ROman empire is not at their peak.....

from my memory... The Parthian army that defeated the Romans at Carrhae in 53 BC operated primarily as a combined team of cataphracts and horse archers against the Roman heavy infantry.

neo

[hkneo2001]

AHAH you mad? The roman cavalry was pretty good, it was really small in the quantity but an elite, find me a better cavarly at that time. Don't forget it was around the year 10. Basically the rich who could afford a total and full armor in iron to protect the body were supposed to join it. And they used to attack thousands of barbarians from the back. And you say it wasn't good? Go to read some history books pls, it's clear you don't know a crap.

Also martial arts do $hit against a weapons, get it. Also Romans NEVER hired non-Romans citizen for the war, it was an army of few thousand of soldiers against big army, and the good of their skill made them win any battle. Only in the later period Romans started to hire barbarians and mercenaries because the enemies were more and more, and the Romans even started to drop some lands like the britan, that was an uncivilized land at the time.

Don't talk without know anything thx

i am not talking about "citizens".. but rather ... non-Romans.....

i find it amazin u constantly refer romans at time tht is not at their peak....
ROmans were peaking during Caesar times..... n plz get tht right

neo

[Sirikittong]

Stop double posting. Warned.

[aZnRiCeChiQ]

Stop double posting. Warned.

Yeah, warned.

Each quote does not need their own post. If you want to respond to each quote, click on each quote button, and press Add Reply. They will show up.

[hkneo2001]

Stop double posting. Warned.

Yeah, warned.

Each quote does not need their own post. If you want to respond to each quote, click on each quote button, and press Add Reply. They will show up.

k thx.....
(IMG:http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/embarassedlaugh.gif) 2

[kaizen]

Stop double posting. Warned.

You are not even a moderator, fool

[Col]

No Wokoo, are YOU mad? the Sarmatians and the Gaulish were the best cavalrymen at that time! Have you been playing Rome Total War too much or something? Rome's strongpoints were its infantry and engineering skills!

I suggest YOU go read a history book yourself. Rome never hired non-Roman citizens? I don't know what histroy course you've taken and what stuff you have read man. Anyone who could afford iron armor must join the army? Rome established possibly the world's first professional armed forces. Men were recruited, not conscripted, and served for 2-3 decades term. We're not talking about the Greek city states here, or the Roman Republic in the Punic Wars days where men must be able to afford their own equipment.

The Romans were known not to be good cavalrymen, hence almost all of their mounted forces were non-Romans. Like I said, Gaulish and Sarmatians were preferred since they were feared for their skills on the horseback. Who the hell do you think the Romans copied the cataphract concept from anyways after the split? Over most of Rome's imperial history, the cavalry had always remained the weakest part of its army. No, they don't charge straight on into naked barbarian hordes; they usually serve as a defense screen, scouts, skirmishers, or flanking forces. the might of the Roman still relied on their highly disciplined legions.


Seriously, shut up before you embarrass yourself.

You are not even a moderator, fool

It doesn't hurt to pretend to speak like one for a while (IMG:http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

This post has been edited by Col: Sep 12 2005, 01:07 AM

[Nung1]

not my section but i couldnt help but join this mud fest. (not a flame war yet i guess , uless u got a samurai and a greek guy there)

Wokoo- i will say this once you are retarded and you really need to read what they say closely. You keep saying the same thing over and over with out realizing you are making yourself to look like an idiot.

seriously. how did a "samurai vs roman soldier" become "our weapons will kill u even before you realise it"???

try to stay on the topic instead of trying to make yourself "right"

[Mr. Tree]

lol, Col buddy dont worry about those dumasses; its been like 11 pages now and those retards still cant get it through their thick heads, worse still are all these uber samurai noobs influenced by anime claiming how great they are or those SPQR freaks roma victor maniacs....

im already sick of it lol, let them be ignorant

(IMG:http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/beerchug.gif)