Spartan versus Samurai

[King_Azzole]

Originally posted by Otherdude@Mar 28 2005, 07:52 PM
I don't remember where I read or saw it...but I recall something talking about the Kopis (Falcata) sword in comparison to the Katana. It might have even just been a making-of Alexander or something like that, but they tested the cutting ability of the two weapons against a steel helmet. The katana's slice was little more than a scratch, at best slightly penetrating the steel, but also damaged the blade. The Kopis cleaved straight through it, to an extent that anyone burying that man might have wanted to bury him with his helmet still on, assuming they could remove it at all. I realize that Spartans fought with the Xiphos, but it gives some idea as to the effectiveness of particular weaponry given the situations. There's a reason Flails became popular in medieval europe when katanas didn't.

You do realize Spartans didnt wear armor?

[barbarion horde]

King_Azzole Posted: Mar 28 2005, 07:38 PM




Posts: 643
(Corporal_Hicks @ Mar 28 2005, 07:29 PM)
perhaps he would before he threw a punch, but the fact is usauly they carried sheilds and swords or spears, that would pose a problem.


Well, the question was at first one on one, then power was brought into the fray, so I had to straighten that out. Now speed and skill comes into play, and again we must fall to the samurais skill and speed with the Katana and other weapons that would win him the day 1 vs 1. Again though, face on, no generalship involved, Samurais would be hard pressed without archers to take a phalanx out. But with archers and especially horse archers it wouldnt be too difficult. Head on... Samurai without shields vs a fully decked out spartan phalanx bristling with spears? Hmmm you can guess

the outcome.

--------------------

I thought this forum was about a lone Samurai and Spartan one on one

[Ó Cathasaigh]

I've got a splindid Idea, we find a decendent of a Samurai and of a Spartan, throw a sword or two into a ring and let them duke it out for a while.

[Dithyrambos]

Originally posted by King_Azzole@Mar 28 2005, 07:47 PM
Yes, the Samurai would annihilate the Spartans with bows... I mean, even the Persians did it jeesh

... Right. The Persians were shooting at Spartans with broken shields, cracked greaves, lost helmets, broken spears, and smashed breastplates. I'm pretty sure that the Spartans made nice and easy targets for the Persians.

You do realize Spartans didnt wear armor?

What was the helmet? The greaves? The hoplon? Just weaponry? Oh, and the breastplate, that was for show.

[Lee1026]

katanas will be bent when you hit it on a hoplon shield. I have seen this in real life. My chem teacher was showing off his Katana, how strong it is etc. accidently hit the thing on a metal ring stand. He had 2 pieces of a katana after wards. And I don't care how sharp the thing is, it is not going to cut though a hoplon shield any time soon. and if the two comes down to a poking contest of spears V. spears, the master would win. If they try duking it out with swords, the katana get broken on the hoplon. The spartan stabs him. game over. and in a swords man contest the one with the stabbing swords always win. If they try shooting arrows, then I can't say for sure, but the hoplon shield is big. and the spartan is better trained. He spent more time at it, after all.

[King_Azzole]

Originally posted by Dithyrambos@Mar 28 2005, 09:26 PM
... Right. The Persians were shooting at Spartans with broken shields, cracked greaves, lost helmets, broken spears, and smashed breastplates. I'm pretty sure that the Spartans made nice and easy targets for the Persians.



What was the helmet? The greaves? The hoplon? Just weaponry? Oh, and the breastplate, that was for show.

Good point on the Persians since you were referring to the same battle I was. And I did further research and according to this wiki persian archers were not that effective against the spartans.

"On discovering the Greeks had abandoned their positions, Mardonius chased after them. The Persian cavalry and archers first came upon the Spartans, and the infantry arrived soon after. The cavalry and archers did little damage and moved off when the infantry arrived. "

But realize the Samurai had specialized weapons. I doubt the little armor Spartans wore periodically because most of the time they wore little to none, which is still none IMO when facing japanese weaponary. This argument in the end is pointless. Its comparing warriors 1000 years apart. Heres a good comparison for you! Lets take the samurai, advance 1000 years, and I dont even need to be a soldier, just give me an M16 and 1 month of training with it and ill destroy a whole squad of samurai in 2 seconds! yea bebe! :happy

katanas will be bent when you hit it on a hoplon shield. I have seen this in real life. My chem teacher was showing off his Katana, how strong it is etc. accidently hit the thing on a metal ring stand. He had 2 pieces of a katana after wards. And I don't care how sharp the thing is, it is not going to cut though a hoplon shield any time soon. and if the two comes down to a poking contest of spears V. spears, the master would win. If they try duking it out with swords, the katana get broken on the hoplon. The spartan stabs him. game over. and in a swords man contest the one with the stabbing swords always win. If they try shooting arrows, then I can't say for sure, but the hoplon shield is big. and the spartan is better trained. He spent more time at it, after all.

He was probobly using a mail order katana or a showpiece one. Use a true master smith tempered steel katana and I guarentee you it might not hold an edge like some blades, but it will get the job done 1 vs 1.

and the spartan is better trained. He spent more time at it, after all

Wrong. here is the truth. Samurai trained longer then spartans.

Also, read this about the Katana.

"Professional testers evaluated the quality of new swords and their penetration, and the steadiness of the wielder's hand was tested by piercing helmets, various parts of armour or the corpses of beheaded criminals "

Why would they break or damage a new sword that was made by a master smith? Logic please.

[Lee1026]

are those armor the metal ones that are commonly used by western armys or the bamboo ones used in eastern armys? because withstanding a hit on a piece of bamboo is one thing, but withstanding a hit on a hoplon shield is quite something else.. and corpses are soft stuff.

Why would they break or damage a new sword that was made by a master smith? Logic please.

Would you rather have your sword broken in training or in the middle of a battle? Hence you want to try to break it before a battle.

[Coh I Nerv Reenactor]

Originally posted by King_Azzole@Mar 28 2005, 07:58 PM
You do realize Spartans didnt wear armor?

It depends on the time period. At the time of Thermopyle they wore a bronze muscled armor with the Corintian helmet. During the Peloponesian war they had the linthorax, an outfit made of layers of linen glued and hardened. It may sound flimsy, but trust me, its not. The hoplon is also not a piece of armor to sneer at, it often weighed as much as 18 pounds and was made of solid wood.

I don't remember where I read or saw it...but I recall something talking about the Kopis (Falcata) sword in comparison to the Katana. It might have even just been a making-of Alexander or something like that, but they tested the cutting ability of the two weapons against a steel helmet. The katana's slice was little more than a scratch, at best slightly penetrating the steel, but also damaged the blade. The Kopis cleaved straight through it, to an extent that anyone burying that man might have wanted to bury him with his helmet still on, assuming they could remove it at all. I realize that Spartans fought with the Xiphos, but it gives some idea as to the effectiveness of particular weaponry given the situations. There's a reason Flails became popular in medieval europe when katanas didn't.

The falcata has more kinetic energy delivered into a smaller area, therefore it has a better hacking ablity. The katana is much sharper however, but in this case it's more about which one delivers more energy.

But realize the Samurai had specialized weapons. I doubt the little armor Spartans wore periodically because most of the time they wore little to none, which is still none IMO when facing japanese weaponary. This argument in the end is pointless. Its comparing warriors 1000 years apart. Heres a good comparison for you! Lets take the samurai, advance 1000 years, and I dont even need to be a soldier, just give me an M16 and 1 month of training with it and ill destroy a whole squad of samurai in 2 seconds! yea bebe!

Yeah, but its fun to speculate about. Besides, it would probably make a good tv show like the one on discovery channel where they had the two completly different animals face off against each other. Besides, its not like its Spartans or Samurai vs Imperial Stormtroopers.

[Dithyrambos]

The hoplon was a few inches of oak covered in a layer of bronze. The katana would not bend upon impact, nor would it cleave right through it. It would puncture the bronze layer, but wind up lodged in the oak.

Honestly, do you really think a Samurai would hit a hoplon dead on in a full-force blow? That's liable to snap the blade in half before it cleaves through the shield and the opponent's arm. Neither are very likely.

In fact, a Spartan getting the heavy shield up in time to block the swift katana's slash would be impressive, to say the least. However, if the Spartan got close, I'm giving it to the xiphos, hands down.

[Xiaodun]

As i have said before, katanas were rarely used in massed combat and only for individual duels. Even then katanas were used for stabbing and only slashed when the enemy had no or little armour. By the way, most of the katanas of today are of poor quality, and made of stain less steel. Also a samurai could unsheath, slash and kill a man in 0.3 seconds. Do you think that a spartan man could move his heavy sheel in poor visibility within that time

Besides in individual combat the hoplon is more of a hindernace

[Xiaodun]

Originally posted by Dan_Grr@Mar 28 2005, 10:38 AM
Heres something from my academic classes regarding the Japanese. Take note that the system measurement is the standard european cm (centúŠeters) and its in Portuguese, although I translated it. The year is 1975. Although people have grown some centimeters in the past decades, Im sure there will be no major and significant higher values (of course we are all taller). Men's height is as follow:




EDIT: 166 cm (1m66). My mother is 160 cm and shes below my chest. Isnt that short?

Also 1975 is 500 years before the time of the samurai and roughly 2200 before the spartans.

Not to mention that the greeks were very short compared to europeans due to being of latin decent

[Rapax]

Originally posted by Corporal_Hicks@Mar 28 2005, 05:47 PM
I'm not saying they would not be fit, i'm saying they'd be fit in a different way, their muscles would be longer and less bunched up, much like a boxer, and the Spartans would be shorter and more boxed up, like a wrestler, perhaps because they did wrestle quite a bit.

And like someone before said, the japanese diet consisted of Rice, Fish, and that's all i know about. While the Spartans could eat, grapes, cheese, some meat from sheep and cattle, and olives.

It's interesting that you assume what a spartan could eat based on what you apparently expect to be readily available in 500 BC sparta. The only thing I have read on their eating habits is that they were eating some sort of black soup that apparently covered their nutritional needs. I also don't think that a spartan would be boxed up, since to achieve such a body size you'd have to eat a lot and things that weren't available to a spartan in large numbers. So I think that spartans developed equally lean muscles as they had to march and train a lot, they didn't spend their time working out to become buff.
Actually I just read that the young spartan (before he turned 18) was kept on a minimal diet so he got used to working on an empty stomach. The spartans also believed that a youth who would be kept slim would grow tall. That is actually quite contrary to being boxed up.

I fear I must leave out any other replies for now as the thread seems to have progressed 4 pages while I last visited it.

[dark_shadow89]

Well, I must say this is an interesting debate. I've often debated in my mind a 'who would win' between Asian and European warriors. Heres what I think:

As an army as a whole, of equal numbers, I'd go for the spartan, no questions, that unit deiscipline and phalanx is unbreakable.

But, as individuals, even WITH a hoplon, the Spartan would get owned. The reason for this is that the hoplon was a big ****** heavy shield, and even with all that training, the spartan can't possibly move it in time to block all those quick, frenzied attacks from the samurai. And yes, traditional katanas were of EXTREMELY high quality - thousands of layers of thin steel hammered together...

[elfaor]

Huge debate…

I know almost nothing about the Samurais, but I have read my fair share about the Spartans and I would like to clarify that:

1. The Spartans were considered the masters of othismos and phalanx combat, there never was a claim by either themselves or a third party that they were superb individual fighters. Even their exiled king Dimaratos was quoted by Herodotus to have said (if memory serves): “In battles, the Spartans, as individuals are second to none [meaning they could hold their own], but together they are the kings of all men”


2. The Spartans had available quite a few options of armour and weapons to choose from. Based on their needs they would adapt their equipment to anything ranging from the equivalent of full body iron/bronze plate armour to linothoraces or total nakedness! They would carry spears of various lengths, xiphoi, aors, daggers and even a mysterious curved short sword.


3. Arrows appeared to be highly ineffective most of the times against all kinds of hoplites, I cannot think of any battle involving hoplites that was decided by arrows/archers. We only have one reference about arrows being able to puncture through the metal hoplon (and that comes from Xenophon’s anabasys) the Karduches archers who used arrows of such size that the Greeks would re-use them as javelins!

4. Spartans had fought against most of the Eastern Mediterranean people at some point either as state troops or mercenaries. They had faced and overcome many more battle tactics than just simply other hoplitic formations.


PS: I wonder where is Conon??

[Dan_Grr]

Originally posted by deathdoom56+Mar 29 2005, 03:46 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td> (deathdoom56 &#064; Mar 29 2005, 03:46 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by Dan_Grr@Mar 28 2005, 10:38 AM
Heres something from my academic classes regarding the Japanese. Take note that the system measurement is the standard european cm (centúŠeters) and its in Portuguese, although I translated it. The year is 1975. Although people have grown some centimeters in the past decades, Im sure there will be no major and significant higher values (of course we are all taller). Men&#39;s height is as follow:




EDIT: 166 cm (1m66). My mother is 160 cm and shes below my chest. Isnt that short?

Also 1975 is 500 years before the time of the samurai and roughly 2200 before the spartans.

Not to mention that the greeks were very short compared to europeans due to being of latin decent[/b]

So you are saying that Im right. Both of them small? Both of them tall?. Almost all the Asian people are small, the statistic bulletin was in Portuguese, but with some attention (possibly because its a bit similar to Spanish) one can easily identify other countrys stated there such as North Korea Vietnam etc, as being the countrys, along with Japan, with the lowest average heights available.

<!--QuoteBegin-Rapax
The spartans also believed that a youth who would be kept slim would grow tall. That is actually quite contrary to being boxed up.[/quote]

Look, one of the Samurais&#39; siders is giving me reason . Even if Spartans were not tall, they could be bigger than Japanese. I&#39;ve met some greeks in my life and they were almost all big. In ancient times they got mixed with barbarians.

[Rapax]

Originally posted by Dan_Grr+Mar 29 2005, 12:58 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td> (Dan_Grr @ Mar 29 2005, 12:58 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Rapax
The spartans also believed that a youth who would be kept slim would grow tall. That is actually quite contrary to being boxed up.

Look, one of the Samurais&#39; siders is giving me reason . Even if Spartans were not tall, they could be bigger than Japanese. I&#39;ve met some greeks in my life and they were almost all big. In ancient times they got mixed with barbarians. [/b][/quote]
Where do I give reasons? Spartans believed it would make boys grow tall (modern nutrionists might beg to differ) and by "tall" they mean "500 BC tall". Also I find it amusing that you are comparing 500 BC spartans with "some greeks" that you have met so far. These greeks have absolutely nothing to do with ancient spartans and in the timeframe we are talking about, spartans most certainly have not mixed with barbarians.
So there is still is nothing conclusive here as to what side would be bigger, taller or whatever. Most so far is pure assumption.

[Dan_Grr]

Originally posted by Rapax@Mar 29 2005, 06:27 AM

These greeks have absolutely nothing to do with ancient spartans and in the timeframe we are talking about, spartans most certainly have not mixed with barbarians.

So there is still is nothing conclusive here as to what side would be bigger, taller or whatever. Most so far is pure assumption.

How do you know that? Have you made a rigorous DNA test to every Greek? Can you smell the assumption you were talking about?

Im sure you have studied History for having said something like that, but follow it with me. Werent the greeks, as a civilization, formed by a group of semi-barbarians, the dorians coming from the north and all that, that we&#39;ve studied? So, whithout the Greeks, would have been the Spartans? And so, you are denying barbarian mix where there is all the evidence for that.

[Over and Out....]

You can&#39;t be serious with this bigger means stronger thing. As we all know there is two types of muscles. They can be bigger or smaller. If you have bigger muscles you have very much power in them, but it wont last long. Because your muscles use much energy they tire faster. So you can use lots of power in short time. And if you have smaller muscles they aren&#39;t so strong but faster. You can&#39;t use so much power at one time but your muscles will have the ability to work longer.

If you lift heavy weights your muscles will grow strong but they will be slow. If you lift smaller weights but do it more often, your muscles won&#39;t grow as strong but will be much more fast. And also big muscles can be on your way if you try to dodge or do something like that.

Also we can&#39;t really make fictional battles in our minds and that way deside which one would win. Because we can always think a way that the one we would like to win, wins.

I remember that someone said that katana has no weight on it. Do you own one?? Cause I have one that isn&#39;t even made in the same way as the strongest and it is still very destructive. And seriously Katana was the soul of samurai and they usually used the best they could get.

This whole question should be more precise because there where places in Japan that where famous of it&#39;s swords (can&#39;t remember the names of them). So samurais that lived in those places would have better eguipment. And of course spartans were very good fighters, but samurais weren&#39;t dumb. Who would really try to attack a phalanx head on. We have to remember that even spartans had to sleep sometime.

P.S.
Lets face it we can&#39;t really get anywhere with this question if we don&#39;t somehow get few spartans and few samurais and tell them to kill each other.l

-Creo

EDIT: To all of you who think that Spartans would win in group vs. group. I have to say that if the spartans aren&#39;t in some corridor or something like that, they wouldn&#39;t be so stupid that they would use phalanx. I mean samurais could just surround them and harras them like bees. After all even a spartan (or samurai) would fall if their body was "covered" of wounds. Your body will tire if you lose much blood.
Hard fight. And very good topick.

[Over and Out....]

Originally posted by B00M@Mar 27 2005, 07:58 PM
If I remember correctly, the Katana was basically a slashing sword, by trying to slash the spartan the sword could be damaged as it was a very thin piece of metal. You all overate the Samurai and the Spartan, but the Spartan would win because the Samurai only carried a Katana, it may have been very sharp but that sharpness wont do much to a shield. It is simply block and stab with the spartans long spear. Spartan wins story over.

Katana wasn&#39;t really just a slashing sword. And it&#39;s greatness wasn&#39;t all about the sharpness. It was because there was little think that wouldn&#39;t have broke if you hit it whit a"REAL" katana. Maill order crap isn&#39;t real katana.

-Creo

[Over and Out....]

Originally posted by B00M@Mar 27 2005, 08:24 PM
Any comments on what I say? The samurai do not stab people, their swords could not stand the constant slashing and parrying. The fact that the Spartan has a spear is much better then the samurai sword, the samurai would go for a slash, spartan would push sword to the side with shield and nail him with a spear. Easy as that. Someone please explain how they believe the Samurai would win the battle.

BOOM will you be so kind and tell me how you stab a man with your long spear if he is so close that he can hit you with his sword??? I really want to know this because I can&#39;t really imagine it in my head. (And don&#39;t tell me that Samurai stepped away of his target after striking. They weren&#39;t stupid after all.)

-Creo