????

You should compare a samurai to a greek soldier. That would be fair

I think the Euro soldier would win.
cause even if they are so mighty powerful.... they fought with grace and things lik ethat.. straight up a crazy mofo will just take it and stab you in da eye and nuts.

I think roman would win. Romans had the best military stratagies. but one on one, i think the samurai would win agains a roman soldier. samurai trained more things than just brute force.

yeah 1v1 samurai would win

Uhhh.. an Urban Legionaire would completely pwn samurai....

Greeks soldiers trained from a very young age They were atheletes and good soldiers, even in a 1v1

huh? there's only one choice and they're combined answers....

but anyways, it would be better comparing a samurai to a medieval knight because at least they were around the same time unless the samurai were at their height in the B.C. - early A.D. era like the Romans were...

SAMURAI (BUSHIDO) vs. MEDIEVAL KNIGHT (CHIVALRY)

the fight continues....

I favor the roman soldier.

It depends on what they are armed with, if the roman soldier is using a heady short sword, and the Samurai using a light katakana, the Katakana can easily penetrate roman armour and can kill him with one slash.
Katakana are made with 3 layers of folded iron which help create light swords, yet very shark and swift.

I would lean toward a Samurai, since even a Samurai has more protection than a Roman infantrymen.

Compare a Samurai and a Knight, it would be equal.

well the knights do have longer 2-handed swords so they have the reach advantage but i'm assuming the samurai is faster and more skillful in close quarter combat so he would win

but in terms of armor, the knight has the thicker one...at the expense of his mobility (have to be strong to wear these! chain or plate mail....also those cool helms and guantlets)

The Roman Soldier, they are more battle hardened after fighting with barbarian hordes. And they have an wider variety of weapons to choose from.

What are you talking about, ninjas are real, and you bet ya Japanese has different weapons, Asians tend to have swift weapons, fast lighting weapons that'll kill without the victim even knowing what killed him/her self.

You are talking about the Spartans. And they were known as one of the best soldiers in the world in history.

Question, will a katana go through chain mail?

japanese would be using gun powder right? roman empire didnt have gun powder am I right?

Samurai armor is like 70 pounds while roman armor is god knows what, I think some swift Japanese martial art moves with a katana would take a roman soldier down

I'd say it is pretty even seeing that the two would both know martial arts.

Bushido VS Roman Greco

What the hell is gunpowder have got to do with this?

i say samurai. samurai chop the romans in little bitty pieces before they even swing their swords..

How about Roman Legion smash the samurai into a buttered nothing with their sword?

Not just Spartans, any greek soldier in general. Although Spartans were the best!

Roman Legions were some of the best fighting forces in the Ancient world. They managed to take almost all of Western Europe and the Middle East. They fought barbarian forces larger in number then them and still one, they would demolish the samurai.

Weren't Samurai more advanced warriors than Romans were at the time? Plus romans fought alot of unorganized barbarian tribes.....Samurai also had tactics and strategy......Sun Tzu's art of war......Plus Romans were not that heavily armored......would be close.....but it is better comparing Rome to a closer people....Han China.....they would have to conquer them before they would ever reach Japan.....

Samurais would totally wipe the floor with Roman soldiers in a 1 on 1 battle. But a tightly grouped Roman formation would easily beat an equal number of Samurai warriors. In war, I'd bet my money on the Roman Testudo or Greek Phalanx, over the Japanese style of warfare preferring individual swordsmanship over proper formation.



This type of formation is nearly impossible to break, especially for lightly-armored, spear-less, samurai warriors in loose formation.

Romans were more advanced with their strategy of fighting. Ever heard of Tetsudo formation with their shields? Plus Romans were heavily armored, especially those Urban and First Cohort Legions.

How in the hell are Romans close to Han chinese?

Romans and Mongolians would be a better match.

The Han Dynasty and Imperial Rome were around the same time........They were Both the 2 powerhouses of the world.......plus they were pretty much next door to eachother...though there was never any conflict....



Oh...nobody can f*ck with the Mongols........even the Japanese were losing to them before the Kamikaze winds hit....

Thought you were saying they were related...

Of course that too....they're all God's children.....hahaha...nawww j/p...I dont go to church....

But didn't Japan have more than just Sword wielding warriors......like their own Yari spear weilding troops......They were both pretty man to man.......

Not Chinese weapons.

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 except more primitive. When one remembers that the huns and the japanese are related people with ancestral/cultural ties, one can see what I'm talking about. The samurai did not have any experience in large-scale fighting until the mongols came, but they did have supreme fighting skills in swordsmanship, archery, and cavalry. The Romans thrived in the times far earlier than the first appearance of samurai, so this isn't even a fair comparison, which is why i mention the huns as a prototype of samurai to make a better comparison. The disciplined, heavily armored roman troops proved to be great in the much uncivilized europe of the times, but in the east things were quite different. I mean, these people grew up learning warfare, whether it be the huns roaming the steppes or the clans warriors running medieval korea and japan, they are on horseback flinging arrows before they learn to walk (a lil exagg). Those fine warriors of Rome would be in a hectic situation when the huns come, because those treacherous bastards fight on a totally different level, where speed and swiftness fastforward the pace of battle beyond the grasp of the romans.
As for the medieval knights, they crumbled under the Mongol invasion. The critical flaw was the same: too slow. European armor were too heavy, their horses large but less swift than asian donkeys (heehaw! ), and their sword-wielding a tid bit too clumsy in comparison to eastern swordsmanship. Historians say that typically battles involving east/central asian warriors lasted not even half as long as battles among european countries

so i think it's samurai handsdown. The samurai did have the best swords, that were light and flexible but still durable, even more so than the large euro swords of the knights

Samurai of course...

The Roman Praetorians is better then the samurai. Weren't the Romans skilled in hand to hand combat as well. Plus Roman Generals were military geniuses.

History
The term "Praetorian" came from the tent of the legate of a legion in the field - the praetorium. It was a habit of many Roman generals to choose from the ranks a private force of soldiers to act as bodyguards of the tent or the person. They consisted of both infantry and cavalry. In time, this cohort came to be known as the cohors praetoria, and various notable figures possessed one, including Julius Caesar, Marcus Antonius and Augustus Caesar (Octavianus). As Caesar discovered with the Legio X Gemina, a powerful unit more dangerous than its fellow legions was desirable in the field. When Augustus became the first ruler of the Roman Empire in 27 BC, he decided such a formation was useful not only in war but in politics. Thus, from the ranks of the legions throughout the provinces, Augustus recruited the Praetorian Guard.
Early Guard

That's call Phalanx formation which soldiers use long hoplite as their weapon. Those weapons are about 5x longer than spears which samurai yari spearmen have no chance to go break through that formation.

huns were babarians with different tactics. they were great soldiers and highly volatile and determined peeps, but you can't make direct exact comparisons to the most complicated warriors in history. samurais were horseback archers in teh beginning, that's about the similarity with huns. but samurais had a strict chivalric code, and hierarchal placement. they were calm and their swordsmanship were art and religion. that's why some are called swords "saints". i must say that huns were not completely stupid and animalistic people, but when it comes to discipline and strictness the samurai is one that resembles knights, but in a more complicated way.

i think the roman legions wouldn't be an easy prey as a whole army. but a samurai and a legionnarire alone i would say a samurai, but none the less not at all biased against them, they conquered the world for crying out loud.

Oh....they'd find a way to fight against them....they arent barbaric, they're Samurai!

Would be great to see Roman sword combat against the way of the Japanese Sword....

In fact it has, the samurai at later time fought mostly with canons and guns. It has always been a misconception to think that samurais fought only with swords.

but guns and gunpowder weren't even around until later times.....I believe Gunpowder was introduced to Japan by westerners?

this isn't biased right???

Well the topic didn't exactly state which period, gunpowders were introduced to japan by the Chinese not long after it was discovered. I believe they used guns as early as the 17th Century, Chinese certainly did around the same time. They were introduced by the Portugese.

I would seriously like to see this fight
I'm not sure exactly what a light katakana is, though
is it a hiragana?

I was also under the impression that katakana were made with a brush, not with 3 layers of folded iron
my bad

^Katana, katakana

Not only the winds. The Samuri went onto the Mongol boats and in close-quarters combat they slaughtered the Mongolians.

Samuri = warrior
Roman = soldier

no comparison IHMO

i think a roman would win because they didnt conquer all that land under king alexander if they didnt know how to fight. Plus they got great athletic skills because they practice during early age.

But don't you think Samurai would have the same story if they had a HUGE continent full of unorganized, "uncivilized" peoples to conquer.......(not including the middle eastern kingdoms and Persia etc...) Look at China....They conquered alot too....

If Japan was situated in Rome, during that time. Im pretty sure they wouldn't duplicate what the Romans did. In fact I bet they would be overrun by barbarians rather quickly.

Samurai....and roman warrior....this would had been something or
shouldi say clash of titan.......like godzilla vs king kong...cats vs dogs
Freedy vs Jason....The rock vs Hogan....and Killer Instinct vs Mortal Kombat

since both Warrior Class...can produce a large army at anytime being
this would had certainly exceed the death Of the Battle of Nagashino aka
Oda clan vs Takeda clan......due to reason that both army had tremedous
fighiting sprit......and Loyalty to there Lord.....both side would had
certainly fought to the very end......Samurai Katana vs Roman Short Sword
the samurai would had slay more roman soldier....then roman can kill samurai
but yet roman soldier...had incredible strenght....from the olympic game
or something like that.....

but in the end i would like to say the samurai can win this battle.....
with the No Dachi......and Wakizashi.....and Naginata....the Roman
would had surely crumble beneath the samurai blade.......

If you play rise of nation you'll know what i mean.....heh heh......I whooped
them roman with my mighty samurai......

and with general and warlord like Oda NObunaga....Takeda Shingen, Toyotomi
Hideyoshi.....and tokugawa Ieyase....the samurai victory is surely secure

So your basing the samurai army beating the roman army by an video game, lol.
Individually the samurai has an advantage but when were talking about army to army then the romans have the advantage. The Samurai would get crushed by an wall of shields bristling with spears. Then they would have the cavalry finish them off.

LOL.....you do have point on the video game....but
i doubt the samurai would be stupid enough like takeda katsuyori to charge
into gun fire nor a spear wall.....and yet the samurai had there own spear wall
of there own skill.....and i doubt the roman be fast enough to take on japanese
samurai.....not only did the japanese knew how to fight with the sword
but also with there bare hand....that why karate was taught among samurai
so incase they lost there sword in battle....they fought hand to hand combat..

and when your talking bout calvary charge i probally bet the samurai would probally pick them heavy armor roman off....with guns or archery
even a simple ahsigaru could kill a mighty skilled roman warrior