that was the battle of Carhae, the parthians used asiatic styled bows \which peirced through roman armour and sheilds, the roman testudo (tortioise formation) was rendered useless against them

Yep that's what i had in mind. Thanks for the backup tree

np.


ill say this much is for sure though, if a fully armoured samurai were to DUEL a Roman Praetor and were using swords only (of course the roman has a sheild aswell) i would say the samura has a greater chance of winning due to the different time period of weapons technology (japanese uses the updated clay-heated 3 plate contructed folded steel swords whereas the roman used wrought iron blades. (reason is because samurai didnt exist when roman soldiers were around)

However, if it were a BATTLE< the romans would definately win even with inferior weapons, why? they have the advantage of sheilds, formation (samurai had this too but usually scraped it once in the battle) pilum, We canot add horse archers, otherwise ill just add Auxillary horsemen.

this is a contest between men not man and beast so it seems alot more fair. along with all this, the romans have much more experience against all types of enemies from the mediteranean Greek hoplites (long @$$ spearmen) to the east against sythians( armed with similar Asiatic bows to the central Asians as well as cavalry) and against people in what is today Germany,france,,Spain,britain, etc.

its just the way it is

Chinese and Koreans should do a better job to glorify their ancient warriors. Because they had even COOLER armour. More heavy armour for the elite warriors that is.

However, Samurai appeal to me more than Korean "Flower Boys" 2

I see what you mean on the one hand but I find the "flower boys" concept very beautiful and intriguing. First, its a misunderstanding as to the title which is "Hwarang" literal translation is "flowering manhood." This is in no way resembles "flower boys" and any connotation that would be attached is purely imaginary or even delusional. These were warriors. Their training, all of it was original and has a mystical quality about it, very obscure. They were trained to be gentlemen and poets, healers, shamans, artists as well. It was a very unique, all-encompassing training and concept. I wouldn't knock it, you weren't there so you can't judge who or what they really were. The hwarang or korean knights defended their borders for over 1500 years. Thats extraordinarily impressive, they were not weakllings or all "gays" or the typical stereotypes that would conjure up. They were also the first asian warrior class to really submerge spirituality, meditation, buddhist principles and honor code within their fighting concept. As the tide turned and confucianism took over korea, it was the end of them and that era. I think the title is what can misconstrue. I think in some ways the samurai class resembles their legacy even if its a bit obscurely or can't be proven. I don't believe having some culture or sensitivity in itself is weak even in a warrior either where it can enhance mental, emotional, physical, and spiritual strength, discipline, and concentration.

I'm just saying.....Samurai are more appealing to people in today's time, that's why so many people think they are cool. Hwarang are very elite warriors, but if you go look at the drawings of them, you'll see lot's of guys with make up and silky clothes on.

BTW, what kind of warriors and Armour were the ones in the movie "Sword in the Moon"????? I remember in one flashback part of the movie it showed them training and they were jumping with swords looking like the Hwarang depictions.

flower boys? whoooooo didnt think so, you want some of that

Chinese and Korean heavy armour is the SH*T!

um your using a movie for a reference -rolleyes

lol why dont i just use The Promise and claim we had mystical magic powers which could blow people up with sword energy

I have bean gone for to long.....

first when did i state the that a katana would cut down a tree?

second.....

The smaurai where equiped for 1 on 1 combat... you are an idiot... the sumrai where not only soldiers they where mercinaries ( of sorts) aswell.... they where very often to act as body gaurds and very very frequently duled each other for titles of honor,land...ect...ect They where very well trained for 1:1 combat...

Don't mind the glasses 2

Hmmm If i could remeber well from something i read

when Japan first was introduced to baseball, and formed their very own little league or something like that.

they went to face off with the booing crowd of american, and their all time american rival

eventually in the end, american @$$ was handed to them in a special doggy bag
that said, Japan Owned ya in baseball

from history accounts of coruse. eventually america wanted a rematch, which turned into another humiliating defeat

Wow! I did not know that. That's badass! What's up with Japanese and Baseball? You know the largest number of Americans living in Japan are famous baseball players.

Did I ever mention that a samurai can cut a tree? Nope I never did you dolt.

The Roman soldier however was equipped with a wooden Shield. How the hell is a samurai going to cut through a shield with his sword? One advantage of wooden shields were that bladed weapons would sometimes stick onto them which means a weaponless samurai. Use that god danm pile of $hit inside your head which everyone calls a brain. You cant cut a shield like they do in cartoons. Samurais never developed shields since the only people they fought were amongst themselves. They did fight Koreans during 1592 but that hardly counts as the samurais we’re using since these warriors used mostly rifles rather than the romantic sword charge. In some cases swordsman were indeed trained for 1:1 but they ONLY people they fought were fellow sword users. They didn’t fight foreign troops with pilums+plate armor+ shields+ swords. What the hell can a samurai do when his opponent not only has a faster weapon(since the Gladius is shorter and is used for stabbing rather than slashing) but also a shield that covers virtually his entire body, and loricated armor which was effective against slashing weapons?

You do realize that Samruai swords were made to be used more on horse rather than on foot? Since curved sabers were effective when your horse was moving. Face it a samurai in most duels will lose.

They each have their own advantages/disadvantages I guess. Romans had that testudo formation that was really neat for protection against arrows so they could advance slowly towards the enemy.

However, 1 on 1, the shield could either be either good or bad cuz they were very large shields, a smart samurai would find a way to get around it plus he would have an extra short sword handy. Samurai swords were really much better than Roman's since you could either slash or stab with them and they were incredibly light.

Either soldiers were well armoured. The romans had strong really strong plate armour but there were still vulnerable spots.

Samurai were so isolated that we'd never know what the outcome would be. They did not suceed with invading Korea, and they were greatly threatened by Mongols but then again the Mongols whooped everyone's @$$.

I still think Han VS Roman would be a better comparison!

Umm Japan successfully repelled the Mongols. Anyways this thread is stupid, as much as I respect the ancient Samurai tradition, it's overglorified by the American media and bunch of Japanophile tools. To say that a samurai army would take a Roman Legion or an army of knights or even more hilarious a nomadic cavalry is insane. Victory in battle is not attributed to simply dueling it out with swords. There's a reason Japan dropped her samurai tradition and went for modern weapons you know.

whats your point? that they were good 1 on 1? its like saying a grapple wrestler against 2 karateka..... lol wrestler = massacred lol

1 on 1 combat on the battlefield is pointless.... its just stupid. no matter how 'skilled' you maybe, skill can never overcome strategy, why do you think Sun Tzu was more succesful than Musashi when it came to bodycounts? because his smart enough to get others to do his dirty work! :P

not only that but the romans were PROVEN effective against other nations.

i got to agree with you on that, The samurai did drop their weapon for modern
day tech. eventually, the samurai lead by takamori Saigo were defeated by the imperial troops. therefore ending the era of the samurai

another thing, the samurai repelled the mongol only due to the storm of the kamikaze, if it wasn't due to that storm, i believe the samurai would had been doomed, like that of the chinese, and korean dynasty.

EXACTLY. someone with a brain here!

just one thing, the saburai didnt actually repel the mongols..... they were advised to retreat by the korean admiral to a safer harbour because a storm was coming... unfortuanately they got caught right in the middle of the typhoon.....after that they left, the japanese collected some survivors (fujianese and a few koreans) to be used as slaves, this is know because 1 of 3 fujianese escaped back to china.

No your being delusional. The Roman troop in 1:1 melee combat has pretty much all the advantages. Not only that but Samurais ONLY FOUGHT AMONGST THEMSELVES. They never encountered or fought shield users so they would know virtually nothing about how to counter it. The Romans however did fight other shield, saber, two handed blade users and other fighters who are not that different from the samurais in swordsmanship. What advantage does the samurai have here, please tell me? Sharper swords are useless when they cant even penetrate a shield that covers pretty much the entire body of the legionnaire nor can a slash guarantee penetration of plate armor. And these shields are lighter than youd expect, light enough that some even ran/charged the opponents with them when their formations were broken. Also Roman swords were shorter and even lighter(that’s right look at the weight comparison) than the average Katana. Its even further enhanced by the fact that the roman gladius was used primarily for quick stabs at the opponents(stabs are faster than slashes).

And the Japanese got rather lucky when facing the Mongols. The Mongol army fought the Japanese samurai. The Samurai were slaughtered rather easily, but the Japanese got lucky when a storm blew out and destroyed most of the Mongol fleet. The remaining Mongols who survived the storm had no where to run and very little in supplies so they were beaten. This storm was even given a name- “Kamikaze” or divine wind, which would later be termed for suicide plane bombing during WW2.

Mongol tactics made them superior against he samurai plus Samurai were poorly armoured. Like said before, it was the "Divine winds" that struck twice to force large mongol/korean fleets to withdraw and thus creating the myth that Japanese were the divine people for the country of Japan and could never be conquered.

That's why we'll never know for sure because the Samurai never fought the world. New strategies are created to adapt to fighting New enemies. That's why Romans were so great because they dealt with all sorts of enemies. Japan never needed new ways of fighting until they eventually dealt with powerful westerners and THEN they realized the need for "upgrade" and look at what they became, a fearsome superpower.

Ironically , the idea of modernizing was for the Samurai Spirit to live on through the new military soldier but the transition didnt turn out as beautiful

Hmm...would Musashi Miyamoto and Sun Tzu be two completely different people? I mean, didn't Musashi look to better himself as an individual man or warrior and his principles were based on that? Or did he create military strategies too?

If it was one on one, I am 100% sure that a samurai would whip a legionaire's arse.

If it was a battle between two armies, I think a Roman legion would win. The Roman legion was a very versatile army that had adapted and fought against many different types of enemy and won, while the same can't be said about an army of Samurai.

all i can say is, a samurai sword will cut right through those big @$$ euro swords. you cant deny it, Japanese make the best swords.

edit: and why are you guys debating army vs army? i believe the topic is "A samurai vs A roman soldier.

In regards to the legion crap... that is not the Question... the question is Roman solier (Note: singular) against Samurai. (note: also singular)

for some reason it wont seem to show the buttons for me any more... so i will corect my typo since i cant edit v.v

Solider**

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.

They practically lived and died by these kinds of competition; they'd better be good.

Where the heck did flipcombatmedic learn his history?!?

All these are pretty BASIC history:

Roman legionaires were CONSCRIPTS--citizens levied for individual campaigns. Later, they were comprised of lower-class citizens who were poor and unemployed. Military provided those lower class the best chance of a good life. Legionaires were NOT professional nor lifetime warriors. (So, Roman legionaires are kinda like the US Army of today, in the way they usually absorb citizens from the lower class; rich Roman children did not fight in war; Rich American kids don't join the Army.)

Wikipedia | Roman Legion

Gladiators were typically prisoners of war, slaves, and sentenced criminals. POWs were not citizens. Slaves were not citizens. Most gladiators--since they were not citizens--could not join the Roman legions.

Wikipedia | Gladiator

Samurai, on the other hand, were professional and lifetime warrior. A samurai was born into the noble, warrior clan and trained from birth to become a warrior.

Wikipedia | Samurai

Simply put, the quality of an individual Roman legionaire (conscripted from the common citizens) could NOT possibly on the same level with a samurai who dedicated his entire life to military training and the "way of the sword."

I don't know why this thread has gone on for so long. A single Roman soldier vs. a Samurai? Well that all depends on the individual talents of the two warriors. However I'm more than 100% positive a Roman Legion army would crush a samurai army.

You're kidding right? Depends on what type of sword the katana's used against, yes it's theoretically possible. Some European swords are designed to break on contact, but in the process delivering enough kinetic energy to strike down the other person. And yes we can deny it, the Japanese do not make the best swords. There are simply no "best swords" unless you count those crazy @$$ weapons from Romance of the 3 Kingdoms and such.

its Mongol Chinese AND Korean fleet

Musashi had the book of 5 rings, Sun Tzu the Art of War. Musashi would have made the better duelist, Sun Tzu would be the victor at all times although he was more a strategist, why? strategy always overcomes skill. just think about it

um...youve been watching too much anime.... even Japanese dont claim this

lol for starters idd say at best a Katana will CUT into a euro sword, but not straight through. they did test on Swordforum.com between a kitchen chopper and a katana, katana cut 10 cm into the chopper (btw it had the same results when someone used a Da Dao against the chopper) this means Asian sword at the time had a great advantage over western sword technology, hell western arms couldnt compete with any Asian weapons untill some Indian/Iranians discovered Wootz Damascus steel.

just incase you dont know, sword technology to Japan came from China via Korea....alot of influence including rigid cross sections, sanmei construction, folding steel, clay heat treatment, differential heat treatment, i forgot the Japanese names :s

the curvature of Japanese blades came from Mongol influences after the japanese were defeated at hakata bay, the samurai later adopted the curved style blades of the continental Asians.

ah i meant 1 cm not 10 cm ..... lol

I wouldnt think the Samurai swords were that fine even though they were INCREDIBLY sharp. But not every samurai warrior carried fine swords. Heh, not even everyone in a Japanese Sengoku period army were all Samurai.

But yeah, Asians did start out more advanced in terms or Civilization and technology than Westerners.

Singular.... the Thred refers to both end in Singular...one on one and yes Most gladiators where prisoners and slaves how ever in times of desperation they where commonly offered their freedom through fighting in the Legion.... of course they where the Front line..... Meaning they ones that weant ahead of the rest of the legion (sort of) to reduse the numbers =p the romans whern't stupid

hrm id bet my money on a roman solider
a lot more fearsome, battle hardened, and more built
then a puny samurai heheh

after all that..i dont even know..cant be compared...samurais most of the time used clothe-like clothings right? if not then the armor of the samurai mustve made them the same speed as the roman warriors

first of all..armor slows people down...samurais held light weight swords and light weight armor... ever thought they would be slow even with light weight stuff? katanas dont need too much strengh to cut, therefore they werent built to hold HEAVY things but armor dragged them down, thats why its ideal for a regular samurai to wear regular clothing or such. as i read before many samurais were regular people, not mostly military use. (as been told by many posters before this, speed and swiftness is the samurais name, armor just doesnt help)

romans, (which id say is pretty rigged for the samurais considering the times are kinda different.) would be the same speed id say, heavy armor but some dude thats ripped like hells holding it, aint sht to them.
if its knights, then id say knights would own so much. full body armor and arm him with a shield and sword...its over

so..DRAW!!!!

im biased on chinese and korean ancient military (mongolians i have respect for them too).

ANYONE TRIED COMPARING SHAOLIN MONKS?!?! (if the opponent have armor then thats just rigged...)

You kidding? Shaolin monks will whoop everyone's asses!

You are watching too much Samurai Champloo. Actual japanese warriors/samurai were fat, drunk perverts. The only reason Japan survived for so long was because it was isolated, after they got Western modern weapons things changed for them.

Lol, quite true.

hell yea ^ and the only ones who can beat Shaolin monks are Tai Chi practioners and old people, and who can beat old people? girls! and who beats girls?" <ME ahahaha :P i keed i keed

2

Samurai would win a roman soldier
But a Roman Legionaire would own a Samurai

But there are different classes of Samurai's. So it all depends on the ranks. Same goes for roman soldiers.

A Samurai would slice and dice any mofo to pieces..

Samurai v Roman soldier?

That's like UFC fighter v Japan Imperial soldier

Samurai v Gladiator... that's a better match.

I wonder if anyone ever thought about recruiting Shaolin Monks as Special Forces troops. Seeing the Shaolin's feats on tv (i.e. breaking bricks with one finger, balancing their entire body weight on one finger, withstand whippings and bladed weapons) I'm sure 100% of them can make through any Special Forces in the world.

Like they got defeated by ninja's? riiiight...

Doing that would violate their beliefs won't it? They're taught not to harm another living being unless absolutely necessary.

LOL, those dudes are so funny, what are they doing with their fingers?