Deadliest Warrior - Spartan Vs Samurai

[Mr. Shaboobies]

True enough, but Samurai used steel weapons compared to the Spartans (bronze or iron? cant remember), so that has to be another edge to the Samurai. I saw the episode a long time ago so I don't really remember how they tested the weapons, but previous posters said they only slashed the spartan armour. Did they even try to stab it? What about the strength of the bows, don't know if they tested the power or just the accuracy of the tester. But like you said, the show is so flawed and based towards entertainment and not enlightenment that in no way should we take their conclusion for fact.

[conon394]

Who was primarily trained for 1 v 1 combat? Spartan (no) or the Samurai (yes). Since deadliest warrior depicts the fight as one (1) fighting another one (1), the Samurai would have the edge. The Spartan was without a doubt a well trained fighter, but most likely for fighting in a phalanx formation. I don't doubt a Spartan would be a good individual fighter, but I think the prowess and prestige that Spartans hold in history is because of their fighting capabilities as a phalanx. The Samurai was primarily trained for individual combat, so one has to assume that they would be better at it that another fighter who was primarily trained for fighting as part of a unit. A better comparison if you wanted to use an ancient Greek combatant would be to use a Mycenaean warrior from the siege of Troy, because they were all about the skills and prestige of the individual.

Typical mistake.

I'll re quote myself from earlier

But the Spartan was hardly just a heavy infantry specialist…

Let’s just recall who we are talking about a member of tiny warrior caste sitting atop a huge mass of helots who gladly ‘eat him raw’ given the chance (according to Aristotle). To make it to manhood a Spartan had to pass a through a brutal upbringing and practice any number of martial arts: staff fighting, wrestling, boxing, and a form of Pankration considered too violent by the rest of Greece [those would all be individual sports]. frank_garrett raised the silly issue of ‘martial arts ‘training as if I don’t know life long close combat Spartans would just you know be flabbergasted by mystical eastern mumbo jumbo… It useful to recall how easily an Athenian Pankration champion (Dioxippus – you can look it up) armed only with a club and no amour defeated one of Alexander’s champions fully armored – dodged spears and such. Further every Spartan had served in Krypteia killing and surviving unarmed and without help in the bush for a year or more.

A better comparison if you wanted to use an ancient Greek combatant would be to use a Mycenaean warrior from the siege of Troy, because they were all about the skills and prestige of the individual.

Not really since those were aristocrats, who had all manor of other things to distract them running kingdoms etc. The Spartans were unique in that a huge class of men existed who had only one job to worry about and it was hardly just practicing the phalanx (a formation that after all even the average Greek farmer could master).

[Mr. Shaboobies]

Like I said before, I have no doubt that a Spartan would be an imposing figure to face in a 1 v 1. But they were primarily trained for the use of the phalanx. This formation was much superior to the previous tactics of the dark ages and Mycenaeans because the men all worked in unison to create an unbreakable front that would beat all others off. The phalanx was the means by which the Greeks were able to colonize the black sea and Italy because the other peoples there couldn't break them in battle, and were driven off. When you take away the phalanx, you still have a very good fighter, but it isn't the same fighter as before. The spartans were made famous by their fighting skills while in phalanx.

And you say that even an average farmer could master the phalanx, but what would happen to a phalanx made up of levies (other greek city-states) when it came up against a phalanx made up of professional soldiers (spartans). It is no wonder why the spartans are thought to be so amazing and unbeatable, look who they were fighting against.

When a lone spartan meets a lone Samurai (someone trained for individual combat), one has to think that the specialist will thrive in the conditions for which they have been trained. Sure the Spartan will win some battles, but Deadliest Warrior puts the simulation through 100 or 1000 battles (cant remember, been so long since I've seen an episode) so you would assume that Samurai would win the majority.

[conon394]

Like I said before, I have no doubt that a Spartan would be an imposing figure to face in a 1 v 1. But they were primarily trained for the use of the phalanx. This formation was much superior to the previous tactics of the dark ages and Mycenaeans because the men all worked in unison to create an unbreakable front that would beat all others off. The phalanx was the means by which the Greeks were able to colonize the black sea and Italy because the other peoples there couldn't break them in battle, and were driven off. When you take away the phalanx, you still have a very good fighter, but it isn't the same fighter as before. The Spartans were made famous by their fighting skills while in phalanx.

And like I said your are incorrect. Samurai also you know had to fight in organized battle and remained regular aristocrats for the most part. The fact is a lot of the things Spartans had to worry about did not involve phalanx battle but keeping a vast pile of helots in check and that was not phalanx battle. The Krypteia was not formation fighting, Spartan combat sports were not formation fighting, staff fighting was not formation fighting... Don't forget Spartan notably render their shields unusable at night so the helots could use them that mean the Spartan waking up to revolt expected to win not as hoplite but in any case...

And you say that even an average farmer could master the phalanx, but what would happen to a phalanx made up of levies (other greek city-states) when it came up against a phalanx made up of professional soldiers (spartans). It is no wonder why the spartans are thought to be so amazing and unbeatable, look who they were fighting against.

Depends not does it not? Against Argives, Athenians or Theban farmers no easy victory and defeat often enough (the formation if well used bested the best individuals)... remember the thing was their training and disciple made the Spartan phalanx very good indeed but at it core the Spartan system was designed to hold down the helots, not in the first case beat other Greeks. Second Spartans had no problem with stealth or lying or cheating, make no mistake a Spartan would consider stabbing a Samurai in his sleep as good a victory as one on the battle field.

[Mr. Shaboobies]

Ok I see what you said now. I wonder though how big a fight the helots could put up, if they were good fighters or if they had any decent equipment. But yes I see that the Spartan's became feared and well trained because of the very system that they needed to uphold. And that system wasn't exactly maintained with the phalanx.

A case could be put up that japanese equipment and arms would have given them an edge, using higher quality metals given their advantage of being around much later in time, and possibly their use of the bow. I don't know of archery being practised at all in Greece, so that would be a big plus for the Samurai.

Also, if the Spartan wasn't against stealthy manoeuvres, then the Spartan vs Ninja episode could have went the Ninja's way , but that's another matter entirely.

[neoptolemos]

i won't make a statement based on thorough appositions or sources but totally on my preference on Samurai swords, thus for me is Samurai

[Roboute Guilliman]

The samurai is a warrior from the medieval days.
The spartan glory days were quite finished with the rise of the macedonians, I hardly see how they would stand their ground against a simple macedonian phalangite. These threads are starting to get pretty ridiculous especially the one comparing the phalanx with the testudo.

[Krazy_Welsh_Lad]

People seem to be misinformed in the fact that they believe that Spartans ain't good fighters by themselves, that's not true. They trained extensively In unarmed single combat and had a form of mma with no rules, throat punches ect where all allowed. The Spartans where banned from the pankraetaion at the olympics because they where to brutal. Also If the Spartan formation broke (didn't happen often) they where the match of any in close combat
The argument of striking the legs is ridiculous, they wore greaves and with there helmets on they where a wall of bronze
A Spartan would in my opinion beat a samurai or infact almost any warrior up until gunpowder became prominent