Looks like meditaton. Don't make fun landsknechts =P

Aww man they closed down the romans vs han topic. A chinese mod probally closed it anyways because it hurt chinese pride.

Those chinese nationalist are ridiculous they claim han would win based on nothing. All they do is claim how the han can make more iron weapons and farm more than the romans. Such stupid logic on their parts. China has been conquered, beaten and humiliated in its history several times over by groups with much smaller populations and less iron or farming capabilities. Yet they claim that the han or chinese armor is invincible. They call me anti chinese because I support the roman cause? Such pitiful logic. They cant even hold a decent argument. They blab on and on about hans iron making skills as if chinese iron is diamonds vs roman iron which is glass.

btw back on topic shaolin monks are over-rated. They perform incredible feats like bending spears on their skin(which is actually possible for anyone). And you see them do a lot of crazy flips and stuff(which is stupid in actual combat). But ask yourself the truth, how effective are they in actual combat? And if your wondering, no Shaolin monks wont own anyone. Shaolin is a very ambiguous term. Its like claiming that a martial artists will own so and so. Martial arts = several different styles and different weapons involved.

And besides most shoalin monks were annihilated and the temple destroyed by the manchus. So much for the shoalin monks owning everyone.

you are not back on topic. stop trying to start another flame war with chinese.

as for the topic, i think samurais would have lost to romans cuz japanese rarely ever faced outside opponents cept the mongols. even then they were lucky cuz of natural conditions which severely weakened the mongol invaders.

I may not be back in the samurai vs roman subject however this topic seems to be dealing with shaolin monks and their combat effectivness. So im still on topic.

iguess you are korean rite?

Ugh, I am sick and tired of dealing with your bull$hit. You know nothing about Roman or Chinese history, and I have effectively destroyed all your $hitty rhetoric. You keep jumping around the timeline, and your contentions are completely false.

Go ahead and make another thread regarding the same topic, because I'll be there to liquidate whatever BS claim you can conjure up.

Shaolin monks haven't always been peaceful, they helped the Tang Emperor-tobe in his fight against Wang Sichong. Some monks were even given military status during the Ming dynasty.

They were, unfortunetly, destroyed by the Manchus when they came in but the Shaolin legacy is everlasting.

Yes the han conquered korea when korea was a bunch of broken primitive tribes. Didn’t the Chinese only face like 2000 troops during this tiny skirmish? When the first true Korean kingdoms emerged(koguryo, Shilla and Paekchae)a few hundred years later. They defeated the Chinese. Heh I enjoy discussing the battle of salsu in which 305,000 Chinese troops were sent to fight a small band of less than 20,000 Koreans. Only 2700 Chinese returned alive while probably less than 2700 Koreans were killed. Wow that must have been fun for the Chinese. Conclusion: The Chinese cant do much in war unless they severely outnumber their opponents(even then they lose) or they are fighting amongst themselves.



Wrong, you know nothing. You never proved anything. I discussed the battle tactics equipment and formations of the Roman empire vs. what the han used. You’ve failed to do so. All you state is that the Chinese could make better iron weapons and farm more. You wrote a freakin bible on the subject. The funny thing was that I never even disagreed with you on the subject of han iron works. Unfortunately your to stubborn and you cant seem to read. So you kept on assuming that I stated that the romans were better at manufacturing. I don’t know why your even arguing with me when you cant even read.

Importantly though who the hell cares if the Chinese can produce more iron weapons or farm more. The Mongols couldn’t farm or make as much iron weapons, is that why they conquered the Chinese?



Please do so. Let me educate you once again

Chinese armies have always been about quantity rather than quality. While the romans used highly trained warriors who were well equipped the han used average troops for the most part who were not so well equipped. Typical roman battle equip-

Scuta- Roman tower shield effective against arrows
Gladius- Stabbing short sword
Philum- Throwing spear with a heavy side used to slow down and make them targets armor or shield heavy(also helps to penetrate things)
Loricated plate armor or chain mail
Iron helm
Daggers
They also had a cavalry squad who also had shields and a. They also hired mecinaries so the roman army varied.

The roman foot soilder would get in formation via the testudo

http://www.larp.com/legioxx/testudo.jpg

This was basically a wall of shields and spikes. The han do not have any formation similar. The Han did have cavalry although they utilized large numbers and most of them were foot soilders. The testudo was very formidable it was protective against arrows and melee weapons. Chinese infantry would stand little chance mainly because hurting a shielded and armored man with a spike pointed at you is difficult. The romans were trained to the point where the testudo moved in unison. A general can tell them to turn, move back, march forward, take a step right whatever. The Testudo would do it without chaos. Han army wouldn’t do much against it.

Furthermore the way bows and crossbows were used in Chinese armies as in other armies as well was to fire them into the sky and let them rain down on the enemy. Then send their infantry troops to fight with the sword, axe, club whatever. No army is stupid enough to fire bows in a straight line(rather than above the sky)while infantry is running towards them. That’s why they have infantry troops. Heck the romans had saber and shield using horsemen too.

For example the English longbow men using some of the most powerful bows in the world would still fire arrows from above. Shields from all ranges of armies that the English faught even the primitive scotts still protected them. Did the English fire arrow after arrow at the enemy? Nope they would fire arrows then send in their knights and warriors for the real fight to begin.

The fact is that roman shields were far larger and more durable than tiny Scottish round shields. They also had the testudo formation therefore protection will be effective. The roman shield was also made of wood and was effective at letting enemy weapons stick on to them. If you chopped at the shield with an axe theres a great chance the axe might stick. And thus you would have no weapon while the roman would have his sword in your neck.

The only time bows were really really effective in straight shooting against infantry I guess was when French knights attempted to attack the English in a wet mud field. The French knights sank in the mud thanks to their heavy armor they wore while the lighter English troops clubbed or shot them to death. Or when the romans I guess had to fight in the sand with heavy armor. They too sunk in the sand and many died of heat and thirst.

In conclusion what exactly can the han do against the testudo formation? If cavalry meets cavalry then it would be a good fight. However a testudo will assist the roman cavalry with phylum and stabs from the sword. The Han infantry will get crushed and then the han cavalry will as well. The archers wont fire into a thick crowd of han and roman warriors unless they plan on hurting their own troops as well. If they do decide to do this then it will be mostly han troops who get shot(the roman testudo formation protects users even from the sky).

Thus theres little that the han cavalry and foot soilder can do. The Han army is very very similar to the Persian army. They used large numbers and utilized a overwhelming strategy to eat up the enemy. Large number of infantry, as well as archers and cavalry. The Persian army however was beaten by the greeks and conquered by the Macedonians. Both the greeks and Macedonians fight in a similar way. The greeks used the phalanx-

http://www.utexas.edu/courses/romanciv/rom...es4/phalanx.jpg

And defeated the Persians. Everyone remembers the battle at thermoply in which 300 Spartans held off and killed thousands of Persians before being overwhelmed. That’s how effective the phalanx is. The romans eventually learned and created a new version of the phalanx called the testudo. Instead of long spears they used short swords. Instead of small round shields they used large tower shields. The Phalanx had longer range however once you get passed the first couple set of spears the phalanx is screwed. The phalanx also cannot turn because that would mean the spear formation would have the change. The romans carried short stabbing swords which made it more maneuverable.

If you studied battle history there are many similarities between the han and the Persians. The han infantry and cavalry would lose indeed since they cant do much nor have the han dealt with an opponent like the romans. The romans however have dealt with and also have historical records of others fight quantity based armies.



On the mere basis that the Chinese emperor ordered the shaolin monks to command large armies of even more Chinese troops to combat another Chinese guy is just hilarious. I see so according to you this is what makes Shaolin Monks own everyone? Because they got to command large number of real Chinese warriors? The only way shaolin monks can actually prove that they own everyone is when they do actual battle against foreign enemies.



That’s the thing, most of the original shaolin monks were killed by the manchus. The original temple destroyed. The people who died were the masters for the most part. And with their death most of the original teachings of the shaolin was also gone. Todays shaolin are mostly acrobats planning to enter hong kong movies or incorporating new styles. By historical records however the Shaolin havent really accomplish much. Other than assist Chinese troops(who probably did most of the fighting anyways).

the fact is that china was able to conquere korea,wheher they were really a bounch broken tribes or not.korea was always in the defences side.
the chinese has ben war with the horse riding nomads for thuasand years,from early huns to manchus. they've learned much tactics,calvary from the nomads than any other country.

The "large number" argument is beaten to death i swear. Back in the days that's basically all that matters! They didn't have guided bombs or anything, or effective artillery for that matter. Population in Asia back in the days was already in the high millions, so of course this population number is going to be reflected on the numbers deployed on the battlefield.

Shaolin monks will own anyone on one-on-one basis, just like this thread's based on a one-on-one basis between a Samurai and a Roman soldier.

No, that doesnt really matter. If I went back in time and beat up a 3 year old kid then went to the future and found out that 3 year old kid is now a 30 year old martial arts expert, navy seal and weapons expert then will I be able to beat him up? You see thats why those chinese nationalists have such poor logical skills. Defeating something when it was weak does not equate to defeating it when its stronger in the future. They apply this same logic to Han>Hun>Romans.
The han faced a different kind of hun then what the romans faced. The romans who faced the huns were also not the same romans 400 years ago during caesars time. The Han didnt face atillas modern army of united hun using advance weapons. They instead faced primitve broken tribes without a really good leader.
The Chinese have indeed been at war with almost all of its neighbors. Going into war frequently does not always equate to tactical expertise. Look at the french. They still suck at war.


Wrong, large numbers did not always equate to victory. China has been beaten and beaten over and over again by much smaller countries. The only country in asia that had population in the high millions happened to be china. Every other country was actually pretty small in population. In the time of christ for example the chinese made 1/4th of the entire worlds population. Population did no always equate to victory. Chinas largest single invasion attempt I believe was when the sui sent in over 1.1 million warriors in one war.
In one battle the chinese sent 305,000 troops against a force numbering something around 20,000 koreans. Only 2700 chinese troops returned alive. Less than 2700 korean troops were killed I believe. Battle of Salsu is the name if your curious. This is just an example of how much the chinese rely on "tactics" and "smarts" rather than large numbers. If the chinese were master tacticians and experts they would have no trouble defeating a much smaller country when they outnumbered them several times over.

Shaolin monks will not own everyone on a one on one basis. Have you ever seen a real monk fight? Movies dont count. In all honesty the only actions ive seen shaolin monks do were stunts and flips just to show off. Acrobats and stuntmen can do the same thing. But can they fight?
And according to history they did command some troops of normal warriors. But that doesnt count as combat proficency. Some sagging old 70 year old general can be a genius, yet have difficulty throwing a mere punch. The shaolin is over-exaggerated. They didnt do much against the manchu and most of them were killed when the manchus slaughtered and burnt down their temple. The original teachings of the temple are gone actually since the most practioners were killed.

^ HAVE YOU seen a Shaolin monk train? Have you seen them do crazy things such as the one-fnger push up? Have you seen them practicing with rods, swords, and their fists?

You can't base entire nation's military based on one fricking battle. The battle of salsu was proclaimed as the greatest national victory ever in Koguryo. Again, can the same standard be applied to the Romans, who were slaughtered by the Parthians at the Battle of Carrhae? The British at Bunker Hill? Dumbass commanders pop up every now and then, and so do brilliant commanders who could make the impossible possible.

As for the Shaolin monks being anniliated by the Manchus. Duh, those monks are human being, they don't have iron skins and $hit against an entire army

[COLOR=red]
the huns that hans have faced were borken tribes? and the romans faced were a united tribe?

give me a break,the huns in china b4 went to europe were at its peak.they were much powerful and fearful.they have conquered proto-turkic,and proto-mongols and many other tribes.

the huns lost the war to the hans,southern huns assimlated with hans,while the north broken tribe went to the west,it took them 400 yrs to reach europe,at hungaria grass land. do you think they could defeat all the tribes all the way froom china to europe? the best they did was assimlated other tribes to gain its population.


the huns whom romans faced were a broken tribes from china,not the real huns


heres somet maps for you

Most famous Samurai were from the 1600 to the 1800, Romans were even before the year 0, i think you should comparate a Samurai with a Knight, like someone said and not with a Roman, if oyu like the Romans, then you should comparate it with a gladiator, even if the gladiator fights in the arena.

Btw the roman would win even in a 1vs1. No offence but i would say Samurai were like skilled barbarians, for sure they are good in fight but they fight like barbarians.

Soz but oyu are wrong, this happened after the fall of the Roman Empire, till Roma had his Empire nobody could get inside it, the wars were on the borders, like with the Parts and with the barbarians from the east.

yah 18 shaolin monks will wipe out both armies! haha

[quote=Wokoo,Sep 1 2005, 10:43 PM]
[quote=hi-head,Nov 28 2004, 05:43 AM]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
[/quote]


the huns are closer to the mongolians or chinese...not too simular to the japanese

practicing the touch of death

By the way the Roman Empire was more large then that, also Romans got all the civilization more strong at that time, Greeks, Carthagine, all the middle east, and the barbarians, even if they were barbarians they were milions against Romans.

The mongols empire was half desert, you know that, and you can see it over any map, mountains, like in China big desert and ice lands on the top.

Also the Roman legionairs were organized, the samurai used to fight for their own boss, it was like a war btw tribes and not a war btw civilizations.

Sorry but no way to comparate a Samurai with a Roman Legionaire. The Roman legionair is definility better.

Japanese forces were too small and divided. They had lil experience in foreign battles.

the samurais were like personal bodyguards

Yes in fact I have seen some of the stunts they performed. Impressive but what application do they have in real combat? For example a shaolin monk armed with a sabre can charge a horseman with a lance and bow, who do you think will win? Doing one finger pushups are great, but fingers that strong wont make your hands as durable as a shield. Someone with a sword will still chop your limbs off with no effort. Most of the things shaolin monks are cool, acrobatic or simply tricks that can be explained with science. For example bending spears with your chest or sitting on a bed of nails. Actually the ordinary person can do this and so can shaolin people. However someone who can sit on a bed of nails wont be immune from a jab by a spear. Its rather easy to impale a person on a spear. Typically speaking shaolin monks were lightly armored and more like martial artists. Do you actually think a shaolin monk can deflect arrows with his sword easilly like they do in movies? Or they can attack a roman legionairre with a staff or sword. The roman however has a freakin shield that covers his entire body and a short stabbing gladius that a well trained warrior can stab 3 times a second with. Or cavalry archers who can fire arrows at a poor monk while on horseback. Its true that a shaolin monk can defeat the typical chinese infantry since they wernt good anyways. But those monks wont do well against the well trained professionals who are well armed.

In real life monks dont fly or block hundreds of arrows like they do in the movie hero. Nor can monks break boulders with their staff. Oh yeah and those magical pressure point techniques dont exsist. its all fake. Its true that there are certain spots of the body that can mess you up(like poking someone in the solar plexus or kicking them in the balls), but there is no such thing as a special area you can touch to kill someone or make them sleep. Go ask any doctor if you dont believe me.


Koreans faught the chinese in several wars, each war containing several battles. Most of them were in koreas favor and in all of the seperate wars korea won(unless you include the time China conquered primitive korean tribes before the sam guk era).


The difference however was that after they lost at the battle of carrhae they would later fight the parthians again. This time they annihlated them, proving that the romans were superior. I believe they fought in 3 other wars in which the romans defeated them. The parthians collapsed due to the romans I believe. The first reason why the romans lost was that they sent their legionaiires to fight the parthians on parthian soil. The parthians lived in the desert and wore lightly(to help against the heat) they also traveled well in the sand. The romans however brought heavy armor and shields and didnt bring as much water as they should have. Because the romans were basically sinking in the sand there was little they could do against them in that battle. The next time the romans met each other the romans were prepared and this time they won.
There are dumbass comanders everywhere however China armies were mostly quanitiy based. A lot of the victories china won could have been won by a 5 year old who knows nothing about commanding an army. Just tell the army to surround and kill the enemy.



You still havent given out a reason why shaolin monks would own everyone. (other than doing flips and one finger pushups which is rather pointless in real combat).

Sigh why do people use the logica that Han>Huns>Romans.

They didnt even fight the same type of huns nor were the romans the similar romans during romes golden age.

The huns that the chinese faught wernt united, they also live over 400 years before the atillas hun army. Rome also faught a more europeon based hun army. Anyways in 432 AD Rua the hun united the huns. He died soon after that. Pretty soon Atilla would become the ruler of the huns. Therefore there was over 450 year difference between what the chinese faught and when attilla came to power with a united hun army. Furthermore Rome was already in decay during the time Atilla came to power. Most of the roman army wasnt even roman. Rome instead hired barbarian mercinaries to become the protectors of romes. They didnt fight like romans, they faught like the barbarians they conquered. Rome was also split up between east and west empires because rome was already in decay. The huns did defeat the romans in several battles. They however defeated rome with barbarian mercinaries rather than golden age rome using the legionairres of the past.

Therefore its easy to see the difference, you cant conclude that han>huns>romans since they were all different from different times. Barbarian mercinary rome faught a united hun army under atilla over 450 years after the han faught a different kind of hun army. The huns conquered primitive mongolian tribes, does that make the chinese greater than ghenghis kahns mongol army? I think not, that logic is rather faulty wouldnt you agree.

the fast was that huns in china were united,and hans broken them apart,only the northern huns managed went europe,so the european huns were infact a broken tribe.

Shaolin monks train their martial arts for possibly the longest amount of time. If i remember correctly, they start with 3 years of fist, then 2 years with legs, 4 year with swords, and so on... I read that from an article a long time ago. Again, you're totally pointing your bias toward the acrobatic flips. Those aren't the only things they know...

If your idea of combat is only practicability, then you're wrong. Yes, karate, taibo, and various other arts are straight forward and look powerful, but form is also important. Chinese martial arts, from my experience, blend form, practicability, and artistic value into one form. Why? That's because i asked my tai-chi teacher this one time during practice. I was asking him how all these forms, besides strengthening your body, could possibly do in a real life situation. He asked me to throw a punch, and which i did. He used the exact same move he just taught and knocked me oof balance!

Yes i know tai-chi isn't shaolin, but i'm using it as an example.

Then why talk about karate if you don't have experience in it?

^ I'm using them as an example. Can you read sir? I've neverlearned karate, but i've seen it in action.

No it was not, the huns that the Chinese faught were different from the huns that the barbarian roman faught. My main point behind this is to show how faulty the logic of han > hun > romans is. Mainly because their was a long stretch of time between what the hans faught and what the romans faught when they met atilla. It was also roman barbarian army that did the fighting. Rather than the real roman army of the past.




Yes i know tai-chi isn't shaolin, but i'm using it as an example.


ok let me get some facts straight

Shaolin monks do train a lot. However what they train in is controversial when it comes to actual combat or warfare. Go look at the training, they do a lot of stuff like flips and $hit. Now im not saying that I can beat a monk in hand to hand fighting. Id get my @$$ kicked. However if you give me a shield and a sword ill murder a shaolin monk with no effort. Or give me a crossbow and ill murder a couple of them with no effort as well. And then go to jail but that’s besides the point.

Also do not include taibo as a "art". Taibo isnt a martial art. Its kickboxing aerobics for fat ladies. And no matter how good you are with your fists do you honestly think a fist user will do good against someone on a horse with a bow and arrow? Shaolin monks cant run 40-50 mph like horses. Nor can they dodge or grab arrows like they do in movies. Therefore shaolin monks sure wont defeat cavalry archers. What about the enemy having a shield that covers their entire body + a stabbing sword that can strike several times a second? Or an armored knight with a lance and long sword? Shaolin swords wont slash through plate armor, not even a katana can do that.

The shields of certain armies for example used wood with metal rims so that the blades of enemy warriors would stick to the shield making the enemy weaponless. Listen, the shaolin monks wont own everyone. They might own certain people but that’s about it. Have you actually seen them fight? Have they actually proven their combat prowess in a real war rather than on average joes? Did they do well against the manchus? They actually didn’t put much of a fight. They were just slaughtered.

Wheras 300 mere Spartans killed thousands and thousands of armored Persians at the battle of thermoplye before they were ambushed and killed. The bodies of the enemy were so high that they created large mounds, the spartans had difficulty seeing the spartan army due to the dead persians.

Do you think shaolin monks would be able to kill thousands of Persians. Because that persian army had bows, sabers and shields and spears. Do you think a shaolin monk would own a spartan for example? Will the monks do better than the spartans if they were in a similar situation?

Do you think a shaolin monk can beat someone with a shield and a really fast weapon? What about a cavalry archer, or a knight with armor that’s immune to pretty much any bladed shaolin weapon? What about someone with a crossbow?

Shaolin monks are a romantic warrior. They can defeat the average thug but when its time to go to war China will utilize its large population who does the fighting.

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

oops, wrong thread.

Wrong the persians sent in their 10,000 immortals. These were the persian elites, they were armed with shields, spear and sword. More importantly though the spartans did superb against the persians elites. Where is your shaolin monk argument? I see that its gone now. The monks would have been slaughtered in a instant.

The spartans were indeed conquered by the romans. The romans did use similar formations as the greek phalanx(they used the testudo). Ever heard of the term Pyrrhic victory? Well when the greeks faught the romans it was a pyrrhic victory for the greeks. Although they won most of the battles they lost the war. Mainly because the romans were too numerous and each battle the greeks faught against the romans costed too much greek lives. The greeks realized that even with all their victories they would still lose. in fact the term pyrrhic victory comes from the greek vs roman war. After the greeks surrendered the romans became the greeks(greek gods, greek military strategy, greek art, architecture and even food etc).

Thats besides the point, do you honestly think a group of shaolin monks will fare well against greek hoplite or roman legionairre during romes prime time?

You're being unreasonable. Monks are martial artists, they do not belong in a military engagement where tactics, mobility, and skills come to a factor. I did not deny that the monks will get slaughtered by any sizable military forces, so what's your point? One on one, they'll beat anyone. Against an organized military on the open field with actual coordination, tactics, doctrine, formation, and specialization, and not to mention disadvantages in equipment and numbers, well what the hell do you think would happen? you're twisting my words here

The Persians had around 300,000 troops, and they prefer long-range combat more than melee. Plus Leonidas did not only bring 300 Spartans, but 7000 Greek allies as well. When the battle was going badly, he ordered the 7000 or so force to withdraw, and held a narrow pass with 300 heavily armored hoplites in phalanx formation against the persians. In the narrow pass terrain, the phalanx worked miracles, and Xerxes could not bring the bulk of his force upon the defenders. Xerxes' troops were over confident, thus resulting in a can of whoop @$$ from the Spartans. I'm sure you know a frontal assault on a phalanx formation quite stupid, especially at the time when the Spartans were masters in phalanx warfare.
Plus, did you really think that the 300 men fought all 10,000 Immortals and 2304893904394834903 Medes at the same time?

Once the Spartans were flanked, they were immeidately slaughtered. Your point is? I do not deny the Spartans were excellent warriors, but like with the Shaolin monks argument, it's simply stupid and ridiculous to pit them into hopeless situations. The main reason why the Greeks lost on the battlefield against the Romans was due to a radical change in tactics. The Greek armies were stubbornly inflexible and immobile, while as the Romans employed flexibility, mobility, and firepower at the same time.

Btw, did i mention how short spears + swords < long @$$ spears? the Immortals might be good, but both the terrain and equipment, plus the Spartan bad asses, worked to their utter disadvantage

In its glory days the roman army was amazing. It was the ancient western worlds first profesional army. The soldiers trained for 5 hours a day plus had numerous small frontier wars to stiffen them. The reliance the romans placed on their troops shows their worth. The romans rarely fortified their river frontiers but instead used legions as deterence. These were almost always outnumbered but still they mostly prevailed. The sheer size of the empire with all its multiple borders was only defended by 300 000 core troops.

Romans found protection in their shield walls but a look at their armour and weapon of choice shows how mobile they were. They left their arms free and wore light armour of leather to allow for maximum dexterity. With their short swords, light armour and vigourous training they must have been incredibly agile and skilled single fighters. Deadly as a group and deadly 1 on 1.

Seeing it isn't enough so don't use it as example......sir

^ Seeing it as in having a friend "practicing" his moves on me

But then soilders happen to be martial arts. You learn martial arts to fight. Spartans learned to use spear and shield to fight. Thus they are martial artist.You continue to persist that they will own anyone 1:1. You havent even backed up your claim. All you’ve done is claim that those monks train for long periods of time. You act as if Chinese monks are the only warriors in the world who train for long periods of time. Its ridiculous.

Again you still havent addressed how and why shaolin monks will own everyone in 1:1 combat. What can a monk do against a Mongol horse archer for example? What can he do against a roman legionairre whos armed with lloricated metal armor and a shield that covers his entire body? What can a monk do against a master bow or crossbow user? Or a fully armored knight on horseback? Please tell me, because in real life monks don’t fly, nor can they split trees in half with their staves. One finger push ups are great, too bad they mean jack in combat. Some weakling will easily do more damage with a spear than a monk could with his finger. What can a monk do against someone with a bow or cross bow? What about someone whos firing arrows on horseback. What about a fully armored knight with a lance charging at full speed on his horse?

And you bring up the fact that terrain and equipment made the difference. Well that’s exactly the point, some warriors are better suited for certain environments, some have better equipment. A roman legionairre for example wore metal armor, metal helm, a tower shield, carried a glaive and a stabbing sword. What did the monk have? Also the Persians preferred short range over long range if you studied proper history. They used large numbers to overwhelm and eat up enemy armies in massive waves. Very similar to the armies of china. I also don’t need a history lesson on the battle of thermoplye. What my main point however was that a mere 300 Spartans held off and slaughtered many times their numbers of Persians. Those Persians faught in similar manners like the Chinese. And again the shaolin monks were never the elite warriors sent onto the front. All they did was practice martial arts, become famous then get massacred by the manchus. The Persians losing so many troops had more to do with battle tactics, formation and equipment.

Now quit wasting my time and tell me exactly how shaolin monks will “own” everyone. The only time they actually own anyone is in HK movies. Didn’t a couple of muay thai fighters beat up a bunch of shaolin monks in a arena fight involving fists and kicks? If that’s the case then shaolin monks sure as hell cant beat professional warriors trained with weapons+who have armor on.

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.

^ Did you even read what i just said? Didn't i mention they'd get slaughtered by a professional army? Skill-wise, yes, they're among the best since they practically train their entire life. Equipment-wise, you might as well kiss their asses goodbye. Also wanna make this clear, Buddhist monks =/= Shaolin monks. I thought i made it perfectly clear. Your argument, to me, is as if you're implying to pitch a horse archer against a tanker in an MBT. It's like saying a n00b is the ultimate badass when he had a machine gun gunning down a hoplite.

Why a monk would own anyone on one-on-one combat, provided that the terms they're fighting on is about par? They have intense discipline and control, not to mention strength, endurance, and agility. You thik a flip is easy to do? You think throwing a punch that fast and hard is that easy to do? I think it's you who's blinded in a weird way by whatever HK movie mentality. If i were you i'd treat something that's passed and has survived along since the ancient times with a little respect.

And the Greeks did not number 300 alone, they actually had 7300. 300 Spartans plus 7000 Greek allies. Skills did play a factor yes, but do you even know what a phalanx is? Equipment, tactics, and terrain played a huge part in that battle. The skills just made it easier to kill Persians.

You quit wasting my time and actually read what i said. Again, i didn't mean to sound hostile, but your arrogant tone's irking me.

Professional army or not, warriors are still practioners of arts. The mongols are a professional army, they also kicked as with the horse and bow. What can a shaolin monk do against someone whos on a horse and a master of the bow? Equipment matters, you cant give a shaolin monk a weapon he does not train in nor has access to. A shaolin monk wont own everyone.Shaolin monks also faught during the same time mongol horse archers came about. Now your saying that its unfair to compare the two? It just happens so that horse archers from all over the world are just as legit in combat as shaolin monks. What about archers or crossbow men then? What about fully armored knights or other warriors? And your reasons on why the shaolin monk would own everyone is just sad.

Heres what you claim

1)They have intense displine and control
2)They have strength, endurance and agility
3)They can do flips, and doing flips is hard so they must be good fighters
4)They can throw a punch fast and hard which isnt easy.

anyone who has a shred of common sense knows how stupid and feeble your arguments are. There are hundreds of different types of warriors who have discipline in control. Thats the entire freakin point of armies.

You also state th at shaolin monks have strength, endurance and agility. So does that mean all other non shaolin warriors have no strength, endurance and agility? What kind of argument are you putting up? Wearing plate armor on a horse and wielding a sword required tremendous strength. Practicing with the katana built much strength. Drawing a 150 pound bow requires a lot of strength. Marching dozens of miles a day while fighting for hours like a roman required much endurance. Nimble sword experts and fencers needed agility to kill their opponents.

Next you bring up the the baffable logic that because monks can do flips(which is hard to do) they must be good fighters and own everyone. Yeah while we're at it lets hire a bunch of circus clowns to defeat any professional army in the world. Afterall doing flips = kicking @$$ right? WRONG. What does flips have to do with anything? Will some 12 year old 4 foot tall romanian gymnast girl be able to kick the @$$ of a merciless mongol warrior?

Finally you state that shaolin monks can own everyone because they can throw punches fast and hard(which isnt easy). Ok whatever dude, there are millions upon millions of people on this earth who can throw a punch hard. A shaolin monk can punch me for all I care. Ill just shoot him down with a crossbow. Why do you still continue to insist that a shaolin monk will own everyone. Give me a reason(and a decent one rather than a stupid one) on why a shaolin monk will own everyone.

And yes the shaolin monastry survived for a long time before it was burnt down by the manchus. Mainly because in other times of war it wasnt really targetted or it was just ignored. Therefore its nothing impressive at all. Egypts been conquered and invaded many times over, the pyramids still exist.

And I think I know a lot more about the phalanx than youll ever know. The same skill, equipment and tactics that made a spartan do well can still be applied in a 1:1 situation between monk and spartan. You seem to not realize that.

who cares,you didnt lived there at the time,infact nobody has.

I care and thats obviously why im replying

I may not have lived hundreds of years ago but theres enough information about the subject to start a debate. In fact thats how we deal with history. And in my conclusion shaolin monks arnt anywhere close to being the greatest.

oneman's opnion.

i think romans were overrated.

what information? who wrote the roman's history? ofcuz themself did.

ofcuz what?

Good for you if you think romans were overrated, whats your point? Shaolin monks wont own everyone and I have evidence on that. You stating romans as overrated is an opinion and I really dont care if its your opinion.

good for you if you think shaolin monks won win everyone,whats your point?

what evidence do you have? living roman soldiers? or ashes or perhaps bones. you might as all go dig up graves of roman soldier,since you adore them so much,perhaps they are still fighting underground

you stating that shaolin monks are useless is an opnion and i reall dont care if its your opinion.

So you are trying to say what? Just look at the facts, who made a big Empire, the Romans or the Shaolin monks?

And who wrote the chinese history? Themselves of course.

So in logical way, the Hans were overrated also.

See my machinegun statement, that's all i've got left to say. Obviously you're selectively reading. Try reading my entire post or something geesh.

And your argument for Mongol warriors is completely stupid. Hello? Horse-riding and archery were the Mongol's way of life; they've been training their entire life time to use the bow, other weapons, and ride on horses because it's their way of life in the plains. I would like to see you practice for 4 years and try to own one of them. You see why the Mongols were that good now? they train for a life time. And your circuit suit alone is not enough evidence to dismiss the skills of shaolin martial artists. Your double standard is baffling.

no matter,china is still 100 times bigger than italy(aka rome)

Why the hell would buddhist monks want to make an empire?

You really make no sense, and now why you talk about Italy, what has Italy to do with Rome? Yes they have Roman blood but so many Eruopeans and even Arabians, you don't know a crap.

I guess some ppl are taking this for a fight btw "west" and "east" because the topic is about the Roman soldier and the Samurai, if now China is bigger then Italy what the hell that has to do with the post?

I don't care why, you can't paragonate an army with an Empire, any Empire, to an army of skilled monks, serious, this is like a kid's talk.

If you actualy knew how to read, I think I clearly implied that Shaolin monks wont OWN EVERYONE rather than shaolin monks will lose to everyone..


Strategy, equipment setup, and the use of these weapons. It doesnt take much brain power to realize that someone with a stick will lose to a expert archer on a horse.


There are records and manuals of how the romans faught. Even today centuries after rome fell we still know what weapons and armor they wore, their strategies and even the food they ate or how long they trained. Now then so whats the point of my post? It was to argue against the moronic statement that shaolin monks are gods? You interefere and say "who cares". If you dont care then why the hell are you butting in? Oh thats right, judging by the pictures in your posts your pro chinese. Sorry if I hurt your fragile chinese ego. Now that I think about it the romans would lose against the shaolin monks. Provided its 1000 shaolin monks vs 1 roman. Cause we all know that the chinese cant win wars unless they outnumber their opponents significantly. Even then they still lose to much smaller numbers.

I already have, your just giving excuses to not reply to everything ive stated. hello you havent proven jack about shaolin monks owning everyone. Seriously how ridiculous are you. Stating that doing flips and punching hard is something special?



Sorry but I NEVER EVER STATED that I would own a typical mongol warrior much less every other type of warrior out there. Funny thing is that you however stated that shaolin monks would own everyone. Im not a shaolin monk, im a ordinary average dude. According to you shaolin monks are supposed to own the mongols. Now please tell me exactly how the shaolin monks are going to own a mongol cavalry archer? Heck tell me how a shaolin monk can handle other non mongol cavalry archers in china, korea and japan?



Wrong, your just ignoring everything ive said so far and instead replying with filler material. And besides that, are you now telling me that shaolin monks would lose to the mongols? Well then I guess we're making some progress. That means shaolin monks wont own everyone. Please tell me what armor and weapons the
There are alot of professional warriors who trained all there lives. Look at the spartans their entire culture was based on the military. Shortly after they are born the babies are brought infront of elders. These elders would look for any defects or weaknessess in the babies. If they were weak they were left to die in the cliffs. If not then they were sent to the military as children. They would then train and be disciplined harshly. The spartans ate mostly one type of food. It was a red broth of blood and meat. They ate this all day everyday to build toughness. Discipline was so harsh that the children wanted to prove themselves. One child who didnt want to be caught stealing a fox put a fox under his shirt. rather than confessing he let the fox eat the insides of his stomach until the kid died. Or in another case a child was willing to get himself whipped just to toughen him up. The kid was whipped so many times that he died just trying to prove himself. The spartans are just one example of the dozens of warriors that can easilly own a shaolin monk. Look at the equipment, armor and shield they used. What makes you think a shaolin monk can do so well? Oh let me guess, they can do backflips and punch fast and hard(which is difficult to do<sarcasm>).