Spartan versus Samurai

[Aged One]

Originally posted by Casanova@Mar 29 2005, 01:22 PM
To me the whole question of this topic is just pointless, forgive me if I am being blunt, but seriously a spartan hoplite is designed to fight in a group, a samuri is trained more to be man to man. So you can't really compare the two, and that doesnt even take into account the difference of 1000 years in technology. Lets compare a spartan hoplite to a japanese warrior of the same period? Hmm wonder who would win that matchup?

got to give that one to the spartan

[B00M]

Yeah, even though I think it would be very close battle, and I belive the Spartan would win in a close fight, you still make a point, look at the difference of time, its a 2,000 year difference. Overall the Spartan was a much better warrior, if you take into consideration what they fought and how they performed. All the Samurai did was fight other Samurai, hell the only victory Japan can brag about is when they beat the Russians in like 1900, they have had a pretty crappy military history. Don't say because they can kill eachother they are good. Does anyone really think the Spartan would be stupid enough to start randomly swinging at a Samurai while he has a shield and the Samurai doesn't?

The Samurai's first instinct would be to attack, as Samurai's are more offensive, while Spartans are defensive. Spartan would wait for the Samurai to make a mistake and then stab the ******.

[Xiaodun]

Originally posted by Cliomhdubh@Mar 29 2005, 10:08 AM
also samurai were social elets ie there were only a few true samurai, every spartan citizen was a warrior

Sparta was a tiny region of a tiny country of a tiny continent (compared with asia that is). There were few hundred greeks in their age, compared to that there were nearly 1.5 million samurai.

[Cliomhdubh]

i didnt think that although id say it was a couple of thousand spartans

[Xiaodun]

Originally posted by Cliomhdubh@Mar 29 2005, 05:11 PM
i didnt think that although id say it was a couple of thousand spartans

At the winter siege of Osaka, 110,000 Toyotomi Samurai and ronin fought against nearly 150-220,000 Tokugawa Bushi. And this isnt including the massive armies of the Mori and Shimazu that didnt do go to Osaka and the second army led by Tokugawa's son that didnt get to the battle in time

Sparta gathered 10,000 at the battle of Leuctra and that was one of the biggest battles for the Spartans

[Rapax]

Originally posted by B00M@Mar 29 2005, 08:55 PM
All the Samurai did was fight other Samurai, hell the only victory Japan can brag about is when they beat the Russians in like 1900, they have had a pretty crappy military history.

So how did we get from Samurai to "Japans military is crappy"? Could we leave that outside perhaps? Prior to WW2 Japan was the strongest power in the pacific, the best army in southeast asia.
Also the samurai we are talking about here spent a good 150 years in constant war, you think that makes crappy warriors?

Don't say because they can kill eachother they are good.

You wanna contend the samurais fighting skills based on "they only fought each other"? That is a pretty weak argument. And before you ask, it is weak because we can't tell how they would have performed against other enemies, it is also weak because warfare is warfare. It's the same everywhere. Japanese warfare didn't consist of tickling each other to death, they fought battles and pretty bloody ones too.

Does anyone really think the Spartan would be stupid enough to start randomly swinging at a Samurai while he has a shield and the Samurai doesn't?

The Samurai's first instinct would be to attack, as Samurai's are more offensive, while Spartans are defensive. Spartan would wait for the Samurai to make a mistake and then stab the ******.

These little "stories" don't get us anywhere in the debate. You just make up something in your head that fits with your opinion. I could write you 10 stories how a samurai would win, but does it help the debate? No.

[Xiaodun]

Originally posted by Rapax@Mar 29 2005, 05:18 PM
So how did we get from Samurai to "Japans military is crappy"? Could we leave that outside perhaps? Prior to WW2 Japan was the strongest power in the pacific, the best army in southeast asia.
Also the samurai we are talking about here spent a good 150 years in constant war, you think that makes crappy warriors?

You wanna contend the samurais fighting skills based on "they only fought each other"? That is a pretty weak argument. And before you ask, it is weak because we can't tell how they would have performed against other enemies, it is also weak because warfare is warfare. It's the same everywhere. Japanese warfare didn't consist of tickling each other to death, they fought battles and pretty bloody ones too.

Good point Rapax.

As for Samurai being crappy, they did conquer most of Korea within a year and beat back the mongols who outnumbered them 4vs1

And the spartans mostly fought other greeks didnt they? WIth the exception of the Persians but Japan fought Korea, China and the Mongols and mostly won

[17_Wilshire_010]

one main reason the japanese beat the mongols was because the majority of their fleet both in 1274 and 1281 were destroyed by the storms (kamikaze, or divine wind). anyway, if u guys remember the topic was about one samurai vs one spartan on open ground. samurai no doubt. again, even if they were both on foot, the samurai could just shoot the **** out of the spartan as he slowly tried to advance, burdened by the huge sarissa and shield and armor. also, its true that the samurai had an advantage in weaponry (being iron, a katana could probably slice a sarissa in half, and a naginata could probably do the same to a spartan's shield).

[17_Wilshire_010]

O yeah and BOOM, about Japan having a crappy military history. despite the fact that they were defeated in the end of WWII (no nation could defeat the entire world), the Japanese took control of the largest percent of the face of the earth out of any conquering country in their offensives in the pacific.

[Xiaodun]

Originally posted by 17_Wilshire_010@Mar 29 2005, 05:26 PM
one main reason the japanese beat the mongols was because the majority of their fleet both in 1274 and 1281 were destroyed by the storms (kamikaze, or divine wind). anyway, if u guys remember the topic was about one samurai vs one spartan on open ground. samurai no doubt. again, even if they were both on foot, the samurai could just shoot the **** out of the spartan as he slowly tried to advance, burdened by the huge sarissa and shield and armor. also, its true that the samurai had an advantage in weaponry (being iron, a katana could probably slice a sarissa in half, and a naginata could probably do the same to a spartan's shield).

It is a myth that there was a storm in 1274. The records show absolutly no signs of rain and it is thought by most Japanese historians that the MOngols retreated because of internal feuds, lack of ammunition, or epidemic.

Second, in 1281 Japanese samurai successfully prevented the MOngols from getting a foothold on the beaches even considering the massive diffrence in numbers.

But now on to the main topic. A katana is steel and so is a naginata, a katana can probably slice a sarrissa but a hoplon shield? Its doubtful. Still its too heavy to be anygood

[Vash_the_stampede]

Originally posted by 17_Wilshire_010@Mar 29 2005, 04:30 PM
O yeah and BOOM, about Japan having a crappy military history. despite the fact that they were defeated in the end of WWII (no nation could defeat the entire world), the Japanese took control of the largest percent of the face of the earth out of any conquering country in their offensives in the pacific.

Do I get you right here? Are you claiming that the Japanese, throughout the history, conquered the most territory ever in their offensives?
That is total BS, to stay in the ancient world, Alexander's "realm" and the Roman empire could hardly be matched by Japan.
Or do you mean only WWII?
Again, that cannot be. Look alone at the territory Russia conquered in WWII, they effectively took half-europe!

[Xiaodun]

Originally posted by Vash_the_stampede@Mar 29 2005, 05:39 PM
Do I get you right here? Are you claiming that the Japanese, throughout the history, conquered the most territory ever in their offensives?
That is total BS, to stay in the ancient world, Alexander's "realm" and the Roman empire could hardly be matched by Japan.
Or do you mean only WWII?
Again, that cannot be. Look alone at the territory Russia conquered in WWII, they effectively took half-europe!

There is a chance that the Imperial empire conquered the most percentage of territory but i bet you that it includes a lot of open pacific sea

[17_Wilshire_010]

why couldnt a slashing weapon made of steel destroy a spartan's shield? unless the shield was made of some super strong material, it wasnt made to protect from steel anyway. they didnt have the faintest idea of what steel was when the shields were made. if the samurai's weapons could cut through the armor of enemies with 2000 years of knowledge to create strong armor, why not a hoplon shield? but i do agree with you, the shield was heavy and not really made to swing in different directions, rather to just sit there and use its large size to deflect incoming...stuff.

and if there were not any storms in 1274 and 1281, why did the Japanese base their tactics in WWII on the kamikaze? because they thought it would save them, just as it did when the mongols attacked. this is kind of weird b/c I'm supporting the samurai but not...
the mongols also did have many disadvantages attacking the Japanese islands like you stated. no doubt without the samurai, the mongols would have easily taken over Japan.

[17_Wilshire_010]

yeah that does include the pacifif ocean...heh...so with all of the ocean territory they also conquered, it was the greatest part of the planet. without it, of course not; they were all tiny islands.

[Eric]

where the hell is the pacifif?

[Xiaodun]

Originally posted by 17_Wilshire_010@Mar 29 2005, 05:42 PM
why couldnt a slashing weapon made of steel destroy a spartan's shield? unless the shield was made of some super strong material, it wasnt made to protect from steel anyway. they didnt have the faintest idea of what steel was when the shields were made. if the samurai's weapons could cut through the armor of enemies with 2000 years of knowledge to create strong armor, why not a hoplon shield? but i do agree with you, the shield was heavy and not really made to swing in different directions, rather to just sit there and use its large size to deflect incoming...stuff.

and if there were not any storms in 1274 and 1281, why did the Japanese base their tactics in WWII on the kamikaze? because they thought it would save them, just as it did when the mongols attacked. this is kind of weird b/c I'm supporting the samurai but not...
the mongols also did have many disadvantages attacking the Japanese islands like you stated. no doubt without the samurai, the mongols would have easily taken over Japan.

A hoplon shield is simply too thick and heavy. Steel is sharp but rather fragile and probably wont be able to slice through a hoplon. Besides katanas were used for stabbing.

By the way the majority of forces fighting the Mongols werent technichally samurai but rather Imperial troops stationed in Dazifu, the samurai were the guys who showed up too late

[Rapax]

I suppose a katana could cut into a hoplon if you hit it at the right angle, but after that you mostly likely need to get a new weapon because the katana would be stuck.

[Xiaodun]

Originally posted by Rapax@Mar 29 2005, 06:12 PM
I suppose a katana could cut into a hoplon if you hit it at the right angle, but after that you mostly likely need to get a new weapon because the katana would be stuck.

If steel could cut into the hoplon, the samurai will probably use his naginata/yari to knock out the hoplon and close in with the katana.

[Ó Cathasaigh]

You guys act like a spartan is usless without his Sheild, they were also very skilled in swordplay, just look at Thermopolyae, they didn't use spears through that entire battle.

[B00M]

Oh my, I am really done with this topic. Rapax you made excellent points throughout the debate, the only one who could actually give a good reason as to why the Samurai would win. Death and Rapax show signs that they are smart by saying that a Katana couldn't cut through a shield effectively, shows you guys take all of the facts into consideration. One thing we should all realise is we will never know, but I came into this arguement beliveing the Spartan would win 100% but now im starting to think the Samurai would have a chance. Goodbye people. Have fun, and please...don't kill eachother .