Page 9 of 41 FirstFirst 1234567891011121314151617181934 ... LastLast
Results 161 to 180 of 809

Thread: Spartan versus Samurai

  1. #161

    Default

    Originally posted by Dan_Grr@Mar 29 2005, 01:44 PM
    How do you know that? Have you made a rigorous DNA test to every Greek? Can you smell the assumption you were talking about?
    It is common sense if you look at Spartas history.
    In AD 406 Alaric destroyed the city, and at a later period Laconia was invaded and settled by Slavonic tribes, especially the Melings and Ezerits, who in turn had to give way before the advance of the Byzantine power, though preserving a partial independence in the mountainous regions. In fact, Slavic tribes were found in the Peloponnese until well into Ottoman times. It has been theorized that speakers of the now-moribund Doric derived language of Tsakonian are the descendants of Spartan refugees of the barbarian invasions.

    The Franks on their arrival in the Morea found a fortified city named Lacedaemonia occupying part of the site of ancient Sparta, and this continued to exist, though greatly depopulated, even after William II Villehardouin had in 1249 founded the fortress and city of Mistra, on a spur of Taygetus some 3 miles northwest of Sparta.

    This passed shortly afterwards into the hands of the Byzantines, who retained it until the Turks under Mahommed II captured it in 1460. In 1687 it came into the possession of the Venetians, from whom it was wrested in 1715 by the Turks. Thus for nearly six centuries it was Mistra and not Sparta which formed the center and focus of Laconian history.

    You seriously believe that the Spartans from 500 BC stayed untouched for 2500 years?
    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'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.
    Sparta started to exist only through Dorian migration, so how can you claim that spartans have mixed with barbarians? In order for Sparta to mix with anyone, they would have needed to exist in the first place when the dorians arrived.

  2. #162

    Default

    Originally posted by Kaiser@Mar 27 2005, 08:34 PM
    samurai swords r curved, therefore a slashing sword, swinging from side to side.
    Actually katana isn't SO much curved. If you compare it to scimitar you will see the difference. I admit that it was effective slashing weapon, but when I did my own experiments with my sword, I found out that it really doesn't matter how you use it ( stabbing or slashing). It was really somewhere in the middle of the two types.

    -Creo
    Caesar is said to have whispered ''et tu Brute?'' as he had 20 knives sticking in his organs, but i think he actually murmured: ''Argblfpahkpfff."
    -smoke

    a Finn

  3. #163
    Cliomhdubh's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    1,947

    Default

    Actually katana isn't SO much curved. If you compare it to scimitar you will see the difference. I admit that it was effective slashing weapon, but when I did my own experiments with my sword, I found out that it really doesn't matter how you use it ( stabbing or slashing). It was really somewhere in the middle of the two types.

    but a curved sword's deadlyness lies in its slashing abiltiy, a wound from the curved sword wont heal as quickly as one from a straight blade. the katana was the strongest,lightests sword of its time, its perfectly balanced and really easy to use. as most samurai were incased in armour just like a mediveal knight they had to be good at penetrating armour aswell as slashing. curved swords have more choping power than straight ones for some reason.
    as for height difference the average hellinic people were about 5ft 5 and the average jap not much different so i dont see any adavantage there

    You can'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't so strong but faster. You can't use so much power at one time but your muscles will have the ability to work longer.
    actually a big person can have just as much stamina as a smaller person. the bigger persons muscles use less energy for smaller movements that would equal the smaller persons strongest swing. this is the general way a muscle works the more pressure put on it to work, the easier it becomes to do that work.

    From the great Gales of Ireland
    Are the men that God made mad,
    For all their wars are merry,
    And all their songs are sad.
    G. K. Chesterton

  4. #164

    Default

    I was talking about the Spartans short sword, I messed up.


    I hope you all realise that not every Samurai had a well made Katana...I also hope you realise that only about 5% of Samurai were expert swordsman, and 5% of that were master swordsmen.

    If any of you would bother to read my resources you would know this, just read all of my posts. So lets put it this way, there is no way, during this battle that the Samurai can slice through the Spartans shield, that is out of question as of now. We have already got proper resources that say everything. There is a possible chance of that happening but the Katana would break if it did. I still belive that the Katana would be able to go through the helmet of a Spartan, well...I can't really recall how thick a Spartans helmet is...so it all depends on that. Someone claimed that the samurai would just slash the Spartans hamstring, how is that possible when his shield would most likely cover it?


    Samurai's armor wasn't that heavy, most of it looks like it was cloth of leather.

    Obviouslly not many people know about the human body here, you still deny the fact that most of the time if someone is bigger because of muscle then he will be stronger, it isn't hard to understand, and notice how I said MOST of the time. About 90% of the time this is true.

  5. #165

    Default

    The height of a person nowadays is ALOT bigger than older times and that is largely do to the amount of food we eat. In wealthy countries around the world people can on average be between 5-6 foot but in 3rd world countries people grow from 4-5foot tall on average. It's how our bodies function, in the past there was always food less readily availible so on average nearly every peron bar a few with the nessessary genes were smaller compared to people today so do not compare people of today with people of ancient times. BTW this means the people with the genes to be tall would still be 6 inches to a foot shorter than they would be in modern times. (for example the average height of a male in america has grown 3inches since the 1940's.)

  6. #166
    Hoglerdanske
    Guest

    Default

    if it was a 1 on 1 then I think the samurai would eventually win.. but I can't predict it!! And if a Spartan amry meet a Samurai army then it would all come down to these:

    Terrain
    Tactics
    Leadership
    Brutallity
    LUCK!! Loads of it!!

  7. #167
    Cliomhdubh's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    1,947

    Default

    The height of a person nowadays is ALOT bigger than older times and that is largely do to the amount of food we eat. In wealthy countries around the world people can on average be between 5-6 foot but in 3rd world countries people grow from 4-5foot tall on average. It's how our bodies function, in the past there was always food less readily availible so on average nearly every peron bar a few with the nessessary genes were smaller compared to people today so do not compare people of today with people of ancient times. BTW this means the people with the genes to be tall would still be 6 inches to a foot shorter than they would be in modern times. (for example the average height of a male in america has grown 3inches since the 1940's.)
    how do you explain then that the average celt was around 6ft while the average (richer roman) was 5ft 5, its called genetics look it up really intresting what genetics do :rolleyes

    From the great Gales of Ireland
    Are the men that God made mad,
    For all their wars are merry,
    And all their songs are sad.
    G. K. Chesterton

  8. #168

    Default

    I cannot believe the issue of height or strength is still at hand when anyone has yet to counter my truthful argument on page 12, top post. Its as if some people just jump in the discussion without even reading whats been covered. This thread is becomming redundant and I dont think im gonna be repeating the same points I made unchallenged over and over.

    FACTS DISCOVERED AND LEARNED PAST 14 PAGES:

    A> Size and strength have little to do with a warriors effectiveness. Skill and speed are key to a 1 on 1.

    B> Samurais trained longer then spartans, since the age of 3 compared to spartans 6 or 7.

    C> Comparing Samurai to Spartans is like comparing a Samurai to a Marine. Its pointless.

    D> The Katana is overemphasized, but its still a good weapon with a powerful blade, not some flimsy piece of tin foil.

    E> Spartans main strengths were in numbers. Phalanx warfare training is group training, not individual training, which is the oppposite for a Samurai. Hence, more then likely in a 1 on 1 situation Samurai would win.

    I dont see how after reviewing the above facts, anyone can conclude differently, unless you can challenge those points themselves, in which I have allready provided much proof beyond my word in most of the areas to show the truth of the matters.
    -Voice of the Celtic warriors in EB 1 and writer of the original tutorial on sound and music editing for RTW.

  9. #169
    Cliomhdubh's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    1,947

    Default

    also samurai were social elets ie there were only a few true samurai, every spartan citizen was a warrior

    From the great Gales of Ireland
    Are the men that God made mad,
    For all their wars are merry,
    And all their songs are sad.
    G. K. Chesterton

  10. #170

    Default

    Another thought: Katanas were made of tempered steel, while Hoplites wore bronze and iron, a weaker metal. It is more likely the Katana would cut through the bronze and maybe iron, then break the STEEL itself over these substances.
    -Voice of the Celtic warriors in EB 1 and writer of the original tutorial on sound and music editing for RTW.

  11. #171
    Cliomhdubh's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    1,947

    Default

    not really steel is only more flexabile it would not absorb a hit anymore than a bronze helm, steel is just less likely to snap when you thrust it and seeing as spartans only wore leather armour i dont really see how it would matter if we're talking about the 16 c samurai vs the ?bc spartan then obivously the more technologically advanced samurai would have better weapons/armour

    From the great Gales of Ireland
    Are the men that God made mad,
    For all their wars are merry,
    And all their songs are sad.
    G. K. Chesterton

  12. #172

    Default

    Originally posted by Cliomhdubh@Mar 29 2005, 09:21 AM
    not really steel is only more flexabile it would not absorb a hit anymore than a bronze helm, steel is just less likely to snap when you thrust it and seeing as spartans only wore leather armour i dont really see how it would matter if we're talking about the 16 c samurai vs the ?bc spartan then obivously the more technologically advanced samurai would have better weapons/armour
    You are aware that "diamond cutters" are used to cut diamonds... because a diamond is the hardest natural substance on earth; Diamonds. Its because of this hardness that another diamond is needed to cut a diamond.

    The same goes for any substance, copper, bronze, iron, steel respectively. Armor made of Bronze or Iron was "weaker" then the Katana and it would generally take a square hit to the breast plate or maybe hoplon to damage the blade. But even then, it was probobly being used ineffectively because a katana is for cutting, not bashing.
    -Voice of the Celtic warriors in EB 1 and writer of the original tutorial on sound and music editing for RTW.

  13. #173
    Cliomhdubh's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    1,947

    Default

    The same goes for any substance, copper, bronze, iron, steel respectively. Armor made of Bronze or Iron was "weaker" then the Katana and it would generally take a square hit to the breast plate or maybe hoplon to damage the blade. But even then, it was probobly being used ineffectively because a katana is for cutting, not bashing.
    stell is only less likely to snap than iron because it contains carbon this prevents the iron atoms sliding over each other as easily as iron. as for bronze it is not a weak metal seriously you get a large peice of bronze and try and break it with a lump of steel i dare say it will take you a while . as for innefective use what the hell are you going to do if someone is wearing armour ask them to hold still while you aim for an unarmoured part seriously like, thats what the sharp point is for, you stab through their armour

    From the great Gales of Ireland
    Are the men that God made mad,
    For all their wars are merry,
    And all their songs are sad.
    G. K. Chesterton

  14. #174

    Default

    Originally posted by Cliomhdubh@Mar 29 2005, 09:36 AM
    stell is only less likely to snap than iron because it contains carbon this prevents the iron atoms sliding over each other as easily as iron. as for bronze it is not a weak metal seriously you get a large peice of bronze and try and break it with a lump of steel i dare say it will take you a while . as for innefective use what the hell are you going to do if someone is wearing armour ask them to hold still while you aim for an unarmoured part seriously like, thats what the sharp point is for, you stab through their armour
    "Large piece of bronze?" We are talking about a thin layer covering flesh. One right strike at the right angle will penetrate it, especially while stabbing. Its like in any fight. Whoever hits properly at the right time and at the right angle with the enemy moving in the right manner will win. And in this case, the Samurai will get the job done more efficiently then the Spartan for said reasons.

    Its a matter of technology, not only in weaponary but in training. The Japanese training was more centered around 1 vs 1, hence in the original question:

    if a Spartan from Sparta's height in all his heavy armour with his nodding horse hair plume on his huge corinthian helmet, with his huge ****** shield, and his long spear and his leaf bladed Xiphos was to fight a Samurai from the Sengoku period is his Yorei armour and his huge helm and his Yari and Katana and Wakizashi on even ground at midday and they both were on foot who would win?
    Samurai would win hands down. :happy
    -Voice of the Celtic warriors in EB 1 and writer of the original tutorial on sound and music editing for RTW.

  15. #175
    Cliomhdubh's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    1,947

    Default

    but the samurai has to contend with the 2 other spears coming from the lines behind the front spartan so he isnt going to get near enough to do that and the spartan is obivously going to have his sword drawn and his hoplon ready to turn the blade away

    From the great Gales of Ireland
    Are the men that God made mad,
    For all their wars are merry,
    And all their songs are sad.
    G. K. Chesterton

  16. #176

    Default

    Originally posted by Cliomhdubh@Mar 29 2005, 09:44 AM
    but the samurai has to contend with the 2 other spears coming from the lines behind the front spartan so he isnt going to get near enough to do that and the spartan is obivously going to have his sword drawn and his hoplon ready to turn the blade away
    Erm, in previous posts it was stated this was a 1 on 1 discussion. I edited my above post as well.

    Note that I agree with you, head on without generalship and without many bowmen a phalanx of spartans would probobly defeat a group of Samurai.. But what Samurai in his right mind would fight a phalanx of spartans without a good Daimyo at his front? With a good Daimyo, I believe its bye bye Phalanx time.
    -Voice of the Celtic warriors in EB 1 and writer of the original tutorial on sound and music editing for RTW.

  17. #177

    Default

    Originally posted by B00M@Mar 29 2005, 02:52 PM
    So lets put it this way, there is no way, during this battle that the Samurai can slice through the Spartans shield, that is out of question as of now.
    A Naginata (also a common samurai weapon) most likely could, as there are accounts of it cleaving off limbs of armored foes easily.
    Someone claimed that the samurai would just slash the Spartans hamstring, how is that possible when his shield would most likely cover it?
    The point was to get behind the spartans shield in a fictious battle. The hoplon is big, but it can't cover everything at once.


    Obviouslly not many people know about the human body here, you still deny the fact that most of the time if someone is bigger because of muscle then he will be stronger, it isn't hard to understand, and notice how I said MOST of the time. About 90% of the time this is true.
    And you should accept the fact that it is not the point. A lot of asian martial arts deal with how to overcome a bigger or stronger opponent and the general approach is to use the enemys strength against him. I mention this because we are looking at Samurai here and they most likely will be proficient in martial arts.
    Samurai's armor wasn't that heavy, most of it looks like it was cloth of leather.
    We already discussed what it was made of: Bamboo, leather, small metal plates, sometimes a metal breastplate.

  18. #178
    Cliomhdubh's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    1,947

    Default

    personally i think the spartan armed with a sheild and a sword would more likely win against a samurai armed soely with his katana

    From the great Gales of Ireland
    Are the men that God made mad,
    For all their wars are merry,
    And all their songs are sad.
    G. K. Chesterton

  19. #179

    Default

    Originally posted by Cliomhdubh@Mar 29 2005, 10:00 AM
    personally i think the spartan armed with a sheild and a sword would more likely win against a samurai armed soely with his katana
    I see the Spartan taking one swing, the Samurai side stepping to his open side which the hoplon is not designed to protect (his partners supposed to protect that side) and I see the samurai slashing through arm, side, hand, or possibly, if the spartan is lucky, a side of the hoplon that might deflect his blow. Even if he did deflect or block it, the Katana would be in motion for strike 2 before the spartan raised his sword again.

    Reason? The spartans sword was designed to smash and cut through anothers armor or shield. The katana was made to pitter pat someone to death. Speed is the key, and speed is on the Samurais sword style.
    -Voice of the Celtic warriors in EB 1 and writer of the original tutorial on sound and music editing for RTW.

  20. #180
    Casanova's Avatar Semisalis
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    someplace in afghanistan
    Posts
    496

    Default

    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?
    I used to have a quote from George S. Patton about the Russians, but I guess some might have found it offensive.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •