werent samurai raised to fight too?

raised in the culture/ideals of a militant confucian society, but practical training does not occur until certain years of age.

the difference with Spartans were they were taken by a totally militaristic state -society to be train day in and day out to be "warriors" which they live in for the rest of their lives.

Yes indeed those Spartans are really creul. They already learn to survive at a very age. One of there training mission was to kill other young Spartans(comrade) to proof they deserves to survive.

This was a way to select the strongest at a very young age.

Spartans first observe the babies that are just born. They will come to a conclusion wether or not if the baby will grow up as a strong/weak male. If they conlcude that the baby will grow as a weak male, then they will kill that baby.

By the way, this was the law in Sparda.

you all do know that Samurai are kinda overrated...not to bag em or anything but fact is the majority were just simply soldiers, only a very few were actually 'masters' or legends whatever, so this thread is kinda stoopid....

Mongols>all

Still, while losing to the Mongols is hardly shameful - the Chinese, even with the split had a HUGE population advantage - est. to be around 100-120 million, while the Mongols probably never numbered more than 300K.

The Mongols were the ones to introduce gunpowder weapons to the Europeans in the late 1200s.

The Spartans also had institutionalized homosexuality (not that there's anything wrong with that - the gay part, not the institutionalized part).

The only job of a male Spartan citizen is to be in the army. Everything else was done by the slaves. Spartan male gets married and comes in to the bed chamber at night when his wife is asleep, have sex and then leaves. Some Spartan female has never seemed their husband in the day light their entire life. Spartan male live their entire adult lives in the barracks with other soldiers. They do nothing but train every single day.

Best medieval soldier has to be a spartan, the were trained from an age of 4-5 and were made to accept harsh conditions (that why a spartan decoration of a room is when there is nothing unneccesary)

best soldier our of all asians must be mongol, serving time for each man was from
16yr old until 60 and they never get paid!!

the spartans were allowed to marry... and they were encouraged to go home to their wives once and a while to have sex with them. But they made teh women dress up as men so they wouldnt feel to unattached from the 'gayness' which was topromote a brother like bond.

The strange part of this is that since the wives never saw their men... they basically ran the city :O
altho it was a rigid society, they could stay back in the city and run businesses like markets and prepare things like clothing, food, and houses. Since they had alot of time many of the women participated in Gyms which was quite popular in that 'warrior culture'. So many of the spartan women were very fit and beautiful with amazing bodies. In many ancient plays there are quotes from women that show their envy of the spartan women.

Because the men were gone for so long, the women would sometimes resort to lesbian activity....

this is an artists rendition of the mighty samurai fighting the roman warriors and the mighty samurai is clearly victor

^looks like a video game.

is it the RTW mod with the Japanese?

Samurai = Horseback + arrows
Therefore
Samurai > roman legions.

You would have to have no visualization skills whatsoever to see that the Samurai on horseback would have his way with the roman legions. Even vastly outnumbered, the Samurai would win.

The debate is quite simple.

Are you sure, samurai on horseback+ arrows, was the japanese main army? Not foot soldiers.

The only horseback master + arrows I have heard of where mongolian soldiers. Each mongolian warrior use to have 2 horses.

So why does this make them good?
Just a bunch of frighten kids and grampas

you did know that despite being the most "uncivilized" they carved the biggest empire in teh world right? with the use of horse archers mostly.

samurais were foot-based soldiers(actually not real soldiers)
the horse riders were mongols,manchus,xiongnu(huns),tujue(turks) and etc.....

What does this have to do with anything. This topic is about samurai vs. roman legionnaire not samurai + peasant soldiers vs. Roman Legionnaire. Of course the common peasant soldier isn’t going to have a horse nor is he/she going to have expensive high class swords. Theyd probably be armed with cheaper weapons like spears.

And Scan Soul your wrong. Most Japanese movies and especially cartoons like to depict samurais during war as lone swordsman who charged the opponent while hacking at them with their sword. The truth however was that the samurais viewed the sword as a secondary weapon while the bow was preferred. And if you clearly look at what the samurais carried to war you’ll find that they don’t carry shields. They carry fantastic swords but no shield that I know of. You wont last long on foot if your armed only with a sword vs. an army that’s hailing arrows at you. The Japanese wernt stupid, instead the standard tactic was actually horseback archers. The Mongols used it, the Koreans used it and so did the Japanese. In Mongol society the bow is the legendary weapon. The Koreans win just about every gold medal in archery available, and in Japan the sword is legendary. The reason being that during WW1 and WW2 swords could be mass produced so that even the common soldier during war could possess one(which really boosted moral). Then theres also those cartoons where the main character uses fancy magic techniques with his sword.

And judging by the fact that horseback archers were vastly superior to just about any army during the sword, spear etc age I can say that the Japanese easilly defeat the roman legionarre. The Crusaders(Europes best warriors at the time) who had experience fighting Muslims in the Crusades did poorly against the mongols. The Romans wont do well either. In fact the mongols were usually outnumbered yet suffered very very little casualties against Europeon armies. Yet when faced with an army that employed similar strategies as well as emphasis on archery(korea for example) much more difficulty was encountered. It took 20 years to beat Korea(despite it being a very tiny nation and the Mongols probably having the number advantage) even with Mongol + Chinese and other conquered groups assisting them. And even then the war did not end with the destruction of the Koreans but actually ended with a truce by both sides with Korea paying tribute and the Mongols no longer attacking korea. Usually the mongols would annihilate those groups who resisted them.

The samurai might have been inferior to the mongols yet the samurais are still superior to the romans due to the fact that they employed horse+archery.

how exactly are we suppose to rate it, Samurai's and Legionnaires that come as they are, or how those two "stereotypically" and historically did battle?

What i'm saying is do we duel them individually, with their historic stereotypical armaments and pit them against each other?

or do we take the whole Japanese/Samurai and Roman/Leggionnaire units, complete with calvaries and siege units and accessory units ie peasant troops for the Japanese and special shock troops, combustible pigs, and rabbid dogs for the Leggionnaires, and pit them how they do warfare?

personally i think it's a tie. both singular and plural sense. because each side have different strenths and weaknesses, that could be exploited by each side.

Legionaries did have horseback riders. Ever heard of Cohort/Urban Legionary calvaries?

And Roman legionaries did have archer based squad.

the mongols used bows more often than swords becuz the landscape.....in the gobi...there is no forest or anything to hidde you up.....when they fight they tend do head to head on horse back and use bows from a long distance...hoever in japan you cant do that,becuz japan is mostly forest and mountains.......
samurais were the personal guard for most japanese warlords.....soldier were most consisted of famers.....
and for the katana viewed as secandary weapon thing not true......samurais carries two weapons with them...one is the long katana and one is the short one....bcuz the short range bettels in japan....
koreans are well know for its defense power mayby thats y it took mongol 20 years to take it over.....but the real story why it took mongols so long to take over korea was bcuz they goal was to take over northen china,they were fighting the west xia,the jin,the song....remember the jin(jurchen were from manchuria and manchuria is right next to korea,if mongol wants to take over korea they have to take over the jurchens first and the jurchens were much stronger than koreans at the time......so its not suprising that it took mongols 20 years to conquered korea....
you have to remember that mongols were interested in the song china bcuz song dynasty was weak and rich....y would they spend majority of they time on korea????

http://www.imninalu.net/Huns.htm

did the huns own europe, including rome? not quite samurai but still

yes the huns did owned part of europe.....the attila of huns............
they moved to the west after been defeated by the hans of china,the northen huns moved to the west and the southen huns had intermerried with local chinese,in gansu, shaanxi area....they adopted the chinese last name Liu...

Roman horseback riders were not ranged fighters. Samurai were. This really isn't a debate. Samurai had an advanced strategy in using the horseback archer.

The Mongols used their horseback riders to obliterate European armies many centuries after the end of the Roman empire.

Actually, Mongols are not considered the best soldiers among just Asians. Many historians regard them as the best conquistadors of all time.

I know it somewhat off topic, but how do you think the korean "samurais" will do? against the japanese and romans?

This is your first post? Interesting...

Do people realize that very few samurai were expert swordsmen? That's why it's such a legendary thing when one is good with the sword, because he's able to out-duel many other samurai. If you're going to use the argument of 1vs1, that the samurai would win because he's a master swordsmen, and the Roman is merely a soldier, it would only be fair to also give the Roman soldier an equal amount of skill with his weapon. I'm sure there were Roman soldiers renown for their skills as sword duelist.

Korean Samurais?

A comparison of the Samurai's swordsmanship and a Legionnaire's swordsmanship would be impossible. I'm inclined to say the Samurai was more skilled with the sword in general. First of all, there is the renowned Asian concentration. Look at the batting averages of the Japanese in the MLB. Now replace that bat with a sword...

And at the same time, look at the batting averages of some of the greatest American ball players...what's your point? Anybody can become greatly skilled at anything. I don't think you need some 'Asian concentration' to do it. 'White, black, hispanic, whatever concentration' seems to do just as good. I'd be inclinded to say you've been watching too many samurai movies.

Haha maybe you're right. Only time will tell. But I do believe Asians, on average, have better reaction time, as reaction time is a function of visuo-spatial IQ and East Asians have the highest avg visuo-spatial IQ in the world.

koreans held for 39 years not 20 years. Furthermore they wernt defeated since the Mongols still didnt conquer Korea and slaughtered its people to install fear(like they would to those they conquered). A truce was instead signed by both sides agreeing to peace as long as koreans payed the mongols tribute and also help them reach japan. Although im not sure if the Koreans would have won if they continued the war since the Mongols would have eventually used armies from just about every country they conquered+their own mongols against them(I believe they were already using Chinese troops against Koreans).


The Korean counterpart of the samurai were the Hwarang. They were mostly expert archers wearing armor while riding on horses. They also carried sabers and shields(big difference since the samurais didnt carry shields). Basically they were like the Mongols except they had a honor code and used slightly different weapons and vastly different armor and clothing. They trained mostly in archery although they had skill in sword, spear in various weaponry.The bow they used was the a water buffallo horn composite bow which had a drawing strength of 166 lbs(which is the same bow the Mongols used). Japanese yumis/bows I believe max out at 80 lbs, Roman archers were mostly foreign employed and they wernt that great, British Long Bows had a draw strength of 110. The standard roman legionairre wasnt armed with a bow however so they face one great disadvantage. In fact the only ranged weapon they carried was the one shot pilum(range was very short). The Pilum(kinda like a heavy throwing spear) was also mostly a weapon not to kill but to make shields useless. It would stick on shields and make them heavier which meant the opponent would have to drop his shield or carry a cumbersome load. However the pilum is slow, its range is minimum and its only 1 shot vs a several shot, long distance, much more accurate , faster and harder to spot composite bow. There honor code of the hwarang was

Their code was
1.Loyalty to the Emperor/King
2.Filial piety to parents/family Respect among friends
3.No retreat in war
4.No unjust killing

They were very effective, created during the Shilla dynasty to fight against Koguryo Koreans and Paekchae Koreans(Koguryo and Paekchae also had similar hwarang warriors although they had different names for their warrior caste). Their effectivness was proven during battles against Koguryo and Paekchae eventually the civil war ended and Shilla was the victor. Their effectivness was also demonstrated in its war against Tang China who attempted to conquer Shilla twice. Shilla successfully defeated and drove the Chinese out with one major factor being the helpful hwarangs despite being outnumbers I believe its somewhere around 1:5 to 1:15.

In most medieval battle between japanese and korean forces the koreans were usually victorious in just about every battle. Examples would include pirate wars, Japanese and Paekchae alliance, Tsushima war etc etc. However that started changing in 1592 when Japan chose to invade korea with portuguese match lock rifles. Although Koreans won the war they still suffered a lot due to the weaponry advantage the japanese. The Chinese had aid Korea as well. So if it was a Hwarang vs Samurai battle than the Hwarang will probally win unless the Samurai has a gun. And we all know that horse archery was vastly superior to foot soilders like Roman legionairres. A Samurai on horseback with arrows can easilly defeat a legionairre. Only difference between Samurai and Hwarang was 1. Hwarangs had better bows, 2. Hwarangs were much better archers(the Japanese spent their time training in sword, spear, archery, meditating and doing sumo while Hwarangs spent most of all their military time doing nothing but archery and some spear and swords). So yeah the Hwarang will defeat the legionairre much more easilly than a samurai.

So basically it goes like this

Fully equipped Roman Legionairre < Fully equipped Samurai < Fully equipped Hwarang < Peasant with a gun.

Also the difference between Roman and Japanese swordsman ship is hard(since there were several styles of Japanese swordsmanship). However most agree that Kenjutsu(Japanese sword martial arts in general) involved lots of slashing and some stabbing. The Romans incorporated the gladius and used it mostly for stabbing. Who do I think will win in a sword vs sword match? The Legionairre will mostly likely win. The reasonn being that the Roman has a shield and a sword while the Samurai only has his swords. The Japanese never really developed shields since they only fought amongst themselves. And contrary to popular anime belief you CANT cut a shield with a slash of a sword. And even if you do, theres a good chance your sword will get stuck on his shield which spells doom for you. If it was Legionairre without shield vs samurai than the samurai will probally win. The gladius is very short and mostly a stabbing sword while the japanese used "sharper" and longer+better blades. The gladius can make a decent slashing weapon but its nothing compared to its japanese counter part. If it was legionairre vs samurai with a shield than the legionairre will win. The reason why the Legionairre carried such short stabbing swords was because of the shield they carried(those large tower shields/pavise(I believe thats what theyre called). You cant swing a large sword with carrying such a big shield because it requires too much strength, its too slow and your shield will make movement and attacking range less effective. If you give both sides small circular shields though then the samurai will probally win. Of course in a no holds bar anything goes battle between legionairre and samurai the samurai will obviously win. In the Hwarangs case, the hwarangs prefered the bow so they probally wouldnt fight hand to hand unless they absolutely had to. And usually if that occured then the foot infantry armed with spears would come to the hwarangs aid while the hwarangs would move back and start firing arrows at the back side. They only charged with swords and spears when they felt the killing moment was right.

2 Peasant with a gun.

There's no such thing as an Euro soldier. The romans soldiers kicked the folks in the area now known as Holland, Germany butt. They conquered the area.
The romans and greeks were far more civilised.

The romans first off wheren't equiped for 1vs.1 combat. the Romans where armed with iron sheilds 4ft long and 2 ft wide made from blocking heavy iron broad swords used by the europeans at the time. the roman swords where not made to slash, the Maximus only being 2ft long is a stabbing wepon. The romans would block the oponets strike and than stab under the sheild... they whernt trained in the same way the samurai was... the medi evil knight as a simular scenario although it is more fair to compare samurai to knigts since the Samurais where at their peek about 1500ad-1600ad.

the medi evil knights swords (broad bladed) swords whernt meant for shlashing either... they where sharp dont get me wrong but not very sharp... the borad swords where made to be a crushing wepon.. and there armour was made to defend against that..... a katana would peirce knight armour... may damage the blade,but it would make it through the armour.... The samurai deifnatly have the trained advantage again.

Samurai is overrated, to borrow minakosama's own phrase, only dumbasses who believe in the media thinks samurai has somehow superior fighting abilities...

you are just getting stupid..... I trained in it for some time and phycaly i had a hard time keeping up.... and if you want to say the japanese whenr advanced and and civil, you're @$$ needs to sit and read Bushido... and all 2,000+ codes and regulations the Samruai lived by... and look into the making of the Katana... a well made katana being a little over 3ft. in length and a 8 ound peice of steel sharp enough to cut through a lose hanging thread.. and still srong enough to endure combat unlike the crapy eurpoean blades..... You sniper have won todays Suck at life award.

um sorry....but the sharpness of a blade does not determine victory....hell some of the greatest warriors, the Jin dynasty used Sword Maces (blunt sword weapons) and ripped all nomads/sedentary people in their path.

its the STRENGH of the weapon that makes it viable. please understand this.

SECONDLY - the sharpest thing in the world is a peice of glass/crystal/diamond is glass strong enough to use as a sword? no diamond? yes but where can you find a diamond 4 ft long?



im not attacking you for being ignorant...not your fault but please read a book (no Japanese books please).

wow are you stupid... you missed an entire sentence of that post..... I have a katana that has stodd a strike from a Mual .... a 100+ pound war hammer in a full over head swing.... note it cost me 300 dollars in repairs but the european blades break when struck with a mace..... Brute strength does not win battles... grace speed and skill will over come any fool of a knight whearing a steel can thinking it will protect him

you know... I've seen this debate before on another messageboard....

... did you ever visit the forum at www.ff7citadel.com?

Minako_megami you are a moron, a liar, a fraud, and a samurai wanna be as well.

After analyzing that pile of $hit you posted let me correct/educate you on certain issues.

The typical roman legionnaire wasn’t equipped for 1:1 combat which Is true. Neither was the samurai.
Not only that but the roman legionnaire used a shield called the scutum. It was made of wood, the advantage of wood over iron was 1. Lighter, 2. Weapons can actually stick on to wooden shields unlike iron. A Katana CANNOT cut a wooden shield. Katanas are sharp, very effective at slicing human flesh, they are however not used for cutting trees. Axes are used for cutting trees and they do this so well due to the weight they have and the blunt force delivered into the blade of an axe. The scutum can block strikes from axes. Also the Maximus ISNT a sword, I don’t know where the hell you got the name Maximus. The name of the Roman stabbing sword is the Gladius Hispaniensis.

The Samurai will win overall due to horse archery but since you are intent only to compare melee to melee or sword to sword combat let me tell you that the samurai will lose to a legionnaire in all likelihood.

A katana CANNOT pierce Knights plate armor. It just cant. Its been tested and its been shown that it cant end of discussion. Heavy blunt like swords are actually better against plate armor than Katanas. Also Europeon swords are sharp, not as sharp as Japanese swords but they can still cut an apple or human head. I don’t know where the hell you got the idea that European swords are as dull as rusted 50 year old kitchen knives. Secondly katanas and Broad swords are used in a different manner. European swords are in fact used in a smashing slashing action. Japanese swords were used in a strike then pull downward motion to maximize the cutting effect of the blade. Obviously a razor blade is not effective at cutting when you just use it to push on things to cut, but when you slide it downwards or upwards it cuts very well.

And where the hell did you get the idea that Japanese swords last longer than European swords? The life of a sword is dependent on who created them and who wields them. A Japanese sword wielded by someone like you obviously wont last long due to the stupidity you possess. Whereas a European sword held by a master could last a very long time.

And heres where I prove that you’re a liar. THERE IS NO SUCH fu-kING THING AS A 100 POUND WAR HAMMER. If you can swing a +100 pound war hammer then you must be the strongest man in the world. Do you think I believe that you can swing a wooden shaft with over 100 pounds on it at the other end? The heavy axes used to cut trees weigh less than 10 pounds.

This is a heavy 10 pound sledge hammer.

http://www.ospikagear.com/browseproducts/1...dge-Hammer.HTML

How the hell do you expect anyone to believe that you can swing 100 lbs of metal with wood attached to it?

I hope you go get yourself killed when you practice your sword. Heck I hope you try to lift a 100 pound war hammer in real life and get yourself killed. Do us a favor and the human gene pool a favor by getting yourself killed.

I remember reading that a crossbow can pierce through the armor and kill the man inside. I'm sure if you've got a bow or perhaps a good crossbow, you can probably win 1:1. You can also use poison dart automatic crossbows also, and you may be able to kill a knight wearing full plate. But, as mentioned earlier, a buffoon with a rifle will spell doom to cavalry. Oh yeah, and didn't legend say that Guan Yu wielded a pretty heavy blade?

Ancient Asian warfare relies more on archery more than swordsmanship. The Chinese and Korean soldiers made extensive uses of bows, hell, the Chinese had powerful crossbows wayyyyyyyy back in the days. Samurais, as far as i know, fight as horse archers. The Romans did lose the Battle of Carr Plain or something like that agaisnt the Parthian horse archers after all.

A katana might be sharp, but it's not a miracle blade. As for:



Wow, are you optimistic. A battle mace against a katana. Ok, the katana is okay, how about the person holding it? Is the blade still in his hands? Is he still standing up? I wanna see someone stand up agaisnt the sheer kinetic energy of a mace! Brute strength does not win battle, neither do grace speed and skill. You need intelligence, skills, firepower, speed, AND spatial awareness to defeat an opponent. Grace in battle is for show. When you're getting killed and must fight back, who the hell cares about grace? Are you putting on a circus show?

The Samurai IS overrated. If you wanna see better warriors, the ancient Chinese and Korean are more notorious yet obscure in that title

We're just not as fancy as samurais. Oh yeah, and Zhuge Liang invented the auto-crossbow.

Correct, crossbows EASILY defeats even the strongest plate armor. The arbalest(very powerful crossbow in Europe) in fact was banned by the pope because a peasant with little training could defeat a fully armored knight whos trained his entire life with one shot. Powerful bows can also penetrate plate armor effectively as well. The reason why full plate armor was never developed in asia was due to the fact that the Chinese invented crossbows before 200 BC. There was no need for plate armor when asian bows could defeat plate armor. Europe saw full plate armor mainly due to its weaker bows(excluding the longbow which is still not as powerful but very close) and banning of crossbows. It was short lived however once guns and the renaissance came. The knight became a symbol rather than a warrior. Japanese Samurais for the most part relied on archery and in general used spears(yari) over the sword on horseback. Mainly because on horseback the spear is longer and it’s a lot cheaper as well. And according to LEGEND guan yus blade weighed 82 jin which equals 100 pounds. It was a kind of unique Halberd weapon which I forgot the name. However this is from the legend and not the actual Guan Yu. One fact is that the weapon Guan Yu used in Romance of the Three Kingdoms story didn’t even show up until AFTER Guan Yus time(800 years after Guan Yus time). Guan Yu in real life probably used a normal spear like weapon in combat with average weight. There have been very heavy weapons made during war, they were reserved for generals. They were not used for fighting, they were used for things like friendship or looking cool.

Yi Sun Shin for example carried a sword that was over 6 foot tall and weighed over 15 pounds. He didn’t use it to fight, he just used it to make himself look like a badass. The Chinese emperor(or was it his general) also once gave Yi Sun Shin a 30-50 pound ceremonial sword with lots of gold in it which I doubt anyone sane would carry to battle. Gold doesn’t make a good bladed weapon btw.

Don't be so pessimistic, a little imagination never hurt anyone. Oh yeah, and Sung Wu'Kung carried a cudgel that was a pillar weighing several tons, which he compressed into a staff that looked only a few pounds. Can you imagine a monkey striking a several ton cudgel (small so there's great pressure) at quick speeds? How about if he grew about the size of a mountain with millions of arms, or perhaps made several hundred thousand copies of himself? He'd tear up anyone. He'd beat up anyone listed here, so make sure to mention that.

wow you made my day, thnx for posting a load of $hit. why do i even care, everyone knows a chinese peasant with a crossbow will own all your asses 2

then again a european peasant with a gun would own us all

you can use your sword, ill just run you over with my car 2 which weapon is superior now?

i have a Paul Chen Da Dao ( War Sword ) but even im not wise enough to use it against another steel object

i love you 2 you always make me laugh