How did samurais have better armor? Their armor wasn't even strong or heavy as Qing Dynasty army's full body armor.

I didn't say they had better armor......I said they had more....like they were covered in armor unlike the roman soldiers who only had body armor and didn't even wear pants or anythings to protect their shins.....Heavier armor would be a disadvantage anyways.....

Arabic assassins win. they are way cooler

Normal Legions such as Hastatis were only armed lesser armor with basic equipments.

Elite Legions such as Praetorian, Urban cohort weared full body armor with heavy shield that is basically impossible to penatrate through it with the normal sword.

Yeah, but I referred to what the thread is talking about, one on one Samurai V.S. Roman......who would you rather be.....Free moving swift samurai with a long fine sharp Katana blade and Wakizashi on the side.....or heavily armored, Large metal shield toting Roman.....that huge shield is gonna get in the way.....

Hehehehe.....this thread will never end.....

Let's just all push Activision to Create a Shogun: Total war Mod for Rome:Total War and see who's better.....

lol i would rather be a samurai.. katana is a great weapon if u kno how to use it real well.. like in kill bill!

Heheh... I like this thread.



SPQR.

what mongol invasion? the one that was suppoe to happen when Japan was sure it'd get crushed so they prayed and all the sudden the worse storm of the milleniium swept the east sea and drowned the mongol invasion? Porbably even more so becuase the Mongols told the koreans to build them ships and hte Koreans did a half @$$ probably sabotage job with them

Even if they all existed at one time, it'd be 300,000 Roman soldiers at maximum. So it wasn't really that big.
Japanese soldiers are not like those samuris in The Last Samuri. Japanse armies consisted of mainly ashigaru 足輕隊 ( lightfoot soldiers -drafted civilians), not those godlike sword masters.

The samurai repelled the Mongol invasion due to the massive seastorms known as the Kamikaze winds. The pacific ocean defeated the Mongols not the Japanese samurai. If Japan was not an island nation and the Mongols had a direction invasion route, it would have been a much different story.

Right on......The truth is that the Japanese were suffering many casualties from the Mongol/Korean invasions before the Mongols had to pull back.....Mongol tactics like "Hit and run, then ambush" and such were very effective....Plus Mongols used more range attacks with arrows and projectiles rather than man to man combat.....I don't know if THESE Yuan dynasty Mongols had the same attitudes as the same ruthless barbaric ones that terrorized Europe, Middle east, and early china but many Japanese villages were slaughtered by Mongols on land also.........

Although I recount from somewhere that I heard that the Kamikaze winds did not destroy entire fleets......some other factor also contributed to the Mongol defeat.....I just can't remember........

Hahahah you got that from shogun total war........i would highly agree that japan
never faced other nation beside the mongol...the chinese and the korean
till recently during the imperial age....when the japanese took on the russian army

Japan was acknowledge the first asian coutnry to defeat a white nation

but anyways back to the point of the samurai's


as you can see in this pic...this was one of the latest samurai army during the warring state....Quote JB: Hahaha i can get my $hit from shogun total war too:


and as yo can see in this tiny picture......if you want to know what really happen
if the Mongol was never really swept away by the storm.....in shogun total war
they give you a chance to see which side was better.....

Go SAMurai!!!!

so as you can see in that pic...the samurai are whooping the mongol....despite
even if the mongol was given a chance to cross onto japanese mainland

Hahaha...Hope I didn't get the wrong message across with the picture......No, I did not get my facts from the Shogun game....In fact, I've never played it before other than the Demo years ago when I was younger.....I just found a cool Mongol picture to put up.....

ROFL. 300,000 at that time was the equivalent of 10 million in today's time.

Do you what the world population was like back then?

2

Well, 300,000 was really not big even for Roman empire itself.
Anyway, this is from a Chinese perspective.

They don't need a big army. Caesar defeated his enemy when he was outnumbered 3:1.

Quality will always beat quantity. At the battle of Agincourt in 1415, a quality English army of 6000 defeated a French army of 30,000.

Well if it is a individual japanese and a individual roman. I would bet for japanese warrior to win. Your average japanese warrior was better covered in most situations. However if we are talking about generals and armies fighting. That is up to debate.

OMFG, I CAN'T BELIEVE THIS. ME AND MY MATES DEBATE THIS EVERY fu-kING DAY!!!
Except we always change who we argue for, ie Samurai, Ninja, Roman, Spartans, Maori, Mongols, Turks, Vikings, etc.
Jesus Christ. ANyways, Samurai's would conmpletely OWN Roman Soldiers. NO CONTEST.
Fact 1. Samurai have special powers that enable them to be super-strong.
Fact 2. Samurai are the direct descendantrs of God himself.
Fact 2. Samurai own swords that USUALLY hold spirits.
Fact 4. If you ever met a Samurai, you will definetely get into Heaven, even if you rape and murder and plander and steal the rest of your life.

A good bazooka will end any disparity

Heh.. 2

He/She just made a fool of him/her self

What makes you doubt my gender?

A perfect example of an idiot. We don't need more people like this in this world.

BS facts, Samurai have special powers? hahaha.

Anyway Roman Legionarys>Japanese Samurai

How about I just come in there with a tank and run over all of you.

which is why i mentioned a bazooka

Mongols would PWN anyone.

Until the time of Trajan, the wars with the Dacians and the neighboring tribes like the Germanic Marcomanni and steppe tribes like the Sarmatians were often inconclusive. The Seleucids actually got the hardest blows from the Parthians and were further divided into kingdoms in Syria and Bactria. The Bactrian kingdom was later overrun by Saka tribes, while the ever-decreasing Syrian kingdom was finally conquered by the Romans when it was in a state of civil war. Carthage was finally defeated with high costs to the Romans, and Roman legionnaires had great difficulty handling Hannibal's war elephants and cavalry, as can be seen in the 2nd Punic War, especially Rome's defeat at Cannae and where Hannibal crossed the Alps into Italy. It wasn't until the Romans used unorthodox tactics like setting pigs on fire or greatly widening their ranks, which were uncommon for legionnaires, that Hannibal's small force of elephants could be effectively handled and subsequently Hannibal defeated. Germania was never fully conquered; Publius Quinctilius Varus's legions were annihilated at the Teutoburg Forests by Germanic tribes. The Picts and Celts provided tough resistance against the legionnaires in Britain; Hadrian's Wall was built for a reason. Scythia was never conquered by the Romans; the Sarmatians finished off the last of the Scythians and dominated the Scythia though some Sarmatian tribes that had moved into Hungary were defeated by the Romans.

But what is most ridiculous is when you said Roman legionnaires conquered Parthia. This is indeed far from the truth. The Romans under Marcus Crassus suffered a crushing defeat at Carrhae 53 BC despite the fact that the Romans outnumbered the Parthians over 3 times; Roman legions totalling about 36,000 soldiers were annihilated by about 11,000 Parthians (if we include the camel train of about 1,000 that resupplied the Parthian horse archers with arrows). At the battle, the Roman legionnaires were completely useless against the Parthian horse archers, whose recurved composite bows released arrows that could penetrate through the Romans' chain mail armour and whose mobility the Romans could not match. Later Roman wars with the Parthians were indecisive not at all due to Roman strength but rather Parthian weakness, as Parthia was having its own civil wars. When later Trajan invaded Parthia, his army was reformed to include much more cavalry, especially the large numbers of Sarmatian and Moorish cavalrymen that were placed into his army, instead of relying on the traditional Roman warfare that centered on the heavy infantry-based legionnaires, who were practically useless against Parthian cavalry. Yet all he gained was Mesopotamia and he was stopped at Hatra, with the result that Parthia was never conquered by the Romans.

The legionnaires were mostly useful against the undisciplined hordes of infantry that were the armies of the Gauls, Iberians, Celts, Germanics, and most of the peoples of continental western Europe. The checkerboard formation of the legionnaires allowed greater mobility which allowed them to defeat the tightly-packed phalanxes of the Greeks and Macedonians. But Roman legionnaires were not prepared to fight against strong cavalry, especially against highly mobile horse archers like those of the Parthians and the Huns that would invade Europe centuries later.



No they did not. It is ridiculous and far from the truth to say that Rome's conquests were achieved mostly by the legionnaires. Rome's victories were not achieved by their legionnaires alone, which had its faults, but more due to the overall generalship of their commanders. Saying all the above nations that you had previously listed were conquered by Rome's legionnaires is as ridiculous as saying that the Japanese could conquer all with their samurai.

A samurai would own a Roman 1v1 because the roman has only torso armour but an army of romans would own a Samurai army.

but the chinese had already invented gunpowder had flamethrowers:

BUT THEY WERE OWNED BY MONGOLS=BARBARIANS HAHA 2

there are some 1500 hundred years in between..... this guy is playing to much Civilization....

Wait, is he talking about Samurais or Shimigamis????

But yes China now would wack all of us except Russia and VS, and the other lot with nukes.

^maybe not EU....

Shimigamis?????

Yes that is what i said EU got nukes we'll nuke china if all hell breaks lose

Go get Bleach and learn....

if you like Japanese movies go here http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=31217.

ey you don't know what a "gebakken aardappel" is so 34uck you and yo bleach!

lets go on with Roman Vs Samurai (srry for this incident)

^no offense dawg, but put all your idea in one post, try avoiding posting double.

The lack of knowledge on this thread is just baffling. First of all get your classical cultures right. The Greeks are different than the Romans. Romans came after the Greeks. The Romans defeated the Greeks. Greeks fought mainly against other Greeks, while Roman fought mainly against Barbarians. Now that we got that out of the way, you can’t really compare Samurai with a Roman soldier. If you want to compare you should compare Samurai with Roman gladiator. The Roman soldiers fight best in groups. What makes the Roman soldiers different from the Barbarians is discipline. Mentality between a Samurai and a Roman soldier is very different. Samurai wants personal glory; a chance for him to prove his worth to the lord. The Roman soldier is fighting for the army and his country. He is fighting not for his own glory but for the glory of the Rome. On a battle field in Japan fighting is mainly done by the foot soldiers not the Samurai. There is no Samurai army. Samurai sometimes lead the foot soldier but most of the time they protect the lord and his property. So I think if you compare Roman soldier at the peak of Roman civilization against Samurai warrior at the peak of Japanese civilization Roman soldier will come out on top. If you guys are unsatisfied with my explanation I can also explain using technology at the time why the Roman soldier will win against the Samurai warrior.

yo, dawg, don't test my dutch knowledge, I don't live that far away.... and I do like gebakken aardappel met champignons....

Anyway, Bleach is an anime which deals with Shinigamis....
Bleach

Well said, I think you have enlightened some of these samurai crazy fools in this thread.

Shinigamis win....

China did have gunpowder weapons but they lacked the organization, intelligence and maneuverability of the Mongols. Which explains why the Mongols were able to beat the Chinese when they were vastly outnumbered. The Mongols were also far superior horsemen then the Chinese. In fact most Chinese fighters fought on foot because of their overwhelming numbers.

Also there is no way in hell a standard Roman legionnaire can beat a samurai or Mongol(whos superior to the samurai).

The standard Roman legionnaire was equipped with a pilum(throwing spear one one shot), shield which I believe is called a pavise and a gladius(stabbing short sword) which was his main killing weapon. They also faught on foot and maneuvered by walking. Their plate armor also wasn’t the best type of armor to run in.

A samurai however fought with yari(long spear), standard swords and of course a bow. Now, I know that Romans are tough but they cant run as fast as a horse nor is the pilum the most accurate of weapons. In fact its less accurate than the samurais bow, has only one shot and cant be fired at long distances because of its weight+having to throw it rather than shoot it. Of course im only talking about melee swords and bow weaponry and not guns(which the samurais did in fact use when attempting to invade korea during the 1590s). Guns are unfair since romans didn’t have them.

Anyways the simple fact that the samurai has a horse giving him speed and maneuverability advantage+ armed with a bow on horse back is evidence enough that the samurai will win. What exactly can the roman do? Try chasing the horse on foot? Also a spear charge will pierce the romans shields rather easily. And lets just say we give the roman a horse to be fair. What then? The roman will charge the samurai with his short sword while the samurai fires arrows while backing off? Roman loses. Or if the Roman decides to charge then the samurai just pulls his yari forward and charges as well. Short sword vs. long spear is a mismatch when it comes to cavalry charge.

Contrary to popular belief samurais preferred fighting from a distance with bows rather than going sword to sword. The same is true with Korean and Mongolian warriors. Difference was that the others used stronger bows than the samurai and probably had much more training on average than the samurais.

In conclusion a roman warrior will lose very badly in a one on one match. Very badly.

the portuguese ended up with the samurai.... so mediterranean race won...

"China did have gunpowder weapons but they lacked the organization, intelligence and maneuverability of the Mongols. Which explains why the Mongols were able to beat the Chinese when they were vastly outnumbered. The Mongols were also far superior horsemen then the Chinese. In fact most Chinese fighters fought on foot because of their overwhelming numbers."

Dude, in that time China was splitted in 3 groups, so there wasn't a real one China. That's one of the reason why China lost to the Mongols. And offcourse those Mongols where master horseman and great with there bows. They proberly crushed the Japanese army, if it wasn't the Tsunami who save them.

The Mongols maybe invaded China once but don't forget how many times China have beat them. They have figthing each other for like 4000 years. And each dynasty ends when it's weak. And when a dynasty is weak you can destroy it. No dynasties are for ever.

Sorry this is off topic but just needed to respond.

haha thats true....
Them Spartans were Crazy tho... abattle culture.
Im sure a single 1on1 with a greek Spartan and Samurai would come out with a sPartan as a winner.

They were Raised to FIGHT... kinda scary how they socialized the brutality of fighting onto these kids