Deadliest Warrior - Spartan Vs Samurai

[Darth_Revan]

If the Samurai pwned the viking, then I say Samurai pwns the Spartan...even though I'm a big fan of Spartans..I think that the Katana will be the difference maker in this fight

[Robertclive]

so many weaboos.

[Amorphos]

If the Samurai pwned the viking, then I say Samurai pwns the Spartan...even though I'm a big fan of Spartans..

In this show the samurai pawned the Viking, but that’s not saying a lot. Vikings were already outdated by chivalric knights hundreds of years before. In the show the samurai re-enactment chaps kept saying it was brain over brawn, but I don’t think Vikings were dumb, and they were very good fighters.

[King_Azzole]

Unfortunately people actually care for the results whereas I only watch the show to see the weapons, equipment and how it's used.

This sums up my feelings exactly. I love the show because of that.

[rekishiotaku]

The testing was not done right. Of course a naginata or katana would not cut through solid bronze armor, but they should have stabbed it, as I'm sure it would have punctured it. But in all honesty a samurai who is wielding steel weapons, covered head to toe and who is trained in one on one combat, versus a bronze-age warrior who is trained to fight in a massive unit, who would really win? Hm.... I still love the show, although I gotta disagree on the results of that particular fight.

[Haakon]

If the Samurai pwned the viking, then I say Samurai pwns the Spartan...even though I'm a big fan of Spartans..I think that the Katana will be the difference maker in this fight

Only the retarded hosts of that show and their computer think the Samurai would "pwn" the vikings. The Vikings fought all over the world, while the samurai fought mostly each other.

Theres so much wrong with that simulation I dont know where to begin. The Vikings were just as good with the bow as the samurai, and they would use the blunt side of the axe to hit a Samurai helmet. But what would really win the day for the Vikings would be experience. They fought all over Europe, and even in northern Africa as well as the middle east.

[Prince of Darkness]

Samurai have guns. Oda Nobunaga's Arquebusiers can easily KO the 300.

[Juggernaut]

The reason why the Samurai is considered to be so great is because Japan stuck with using swords for so long while the rest of the civilized world moved on to gunpowder, thus the western sword fencing as seen in the medival age pretty much died out.

Huh?
Is this the same Japan that possessed 600000 guns only 50 years after it's introduction?

[rekishiotaku]

Only the retarded hosts of that show and their computer think the Samurai would "pwn" the vikings. The Vikings fought all over the world, while the samurai fought mostly each other.

Theres so much wrong with that simulation I dont know where to begin. The Vikings were just as good with the bow as the samurai, and they would use the blunt side of the axe to hit a Samurai helmet. But what would really win the day for the Vikings would be experience. They fought all over Europe, and even in northern Africa as well as the middle east.

Samurai fought all over Asia, when the sengoku ended, some samurai traveled to China and SE Asia were they fought other SE Asians and European Portuguese mercenaries. However I don't think geographic range has much to do with fighting power, otherwise the pirate should be able to defeat any opponent. Everything the Viking had, the Japanese samurai had but far better, their weapons were of a hirer caliber, where I believe the viking were using late iron-age technology.

Also the Viking bow is a single piece of wood, where the Japanese bow is recurved and made of laminated wood. I'm not sure if that effects the accuracy or the distance, but I would assume it would, otherwise bows would have not evolved. And the Huns and Mongols would have used the same slunk of wood the vikings did.

[CtrlAltDe1337]

HEY GUYS SOME SHOW ON SPIKE SAYS SPARTANS BEAT SAMURAI IT MUST BE TRUE DEADLIEST WARRIOR IS SCIENTIFIC AFTER ALL!

[Majonga]

I studied Sparta as part of my A-level Ancient History course and here's what I have to say about this.

1 vs 1 a Spartan was no better in combat than any other hoplite in Greece. Infact at the Battle of 300 Champions (494 B.C), Herodotus reports there was only 1 Spartan left and 2 Argives. What made the Spartans so great in battle was not their individual skill at arms, but 2 things.

1. Their discipline and trust, In a phalanx, the men tend to bunch together, because it's your partner's shield that covers you, not our own. Which means the right of the line crunches into the left as the men try to cover themselves. Also in the heat of Phalanx warfare, which is hot close and horrible, there is the temptation to break the phalanx and defend yourself. This breaks the phalanx and creates gaps that get people killed. When a Spartan Phalanx met say another Greek phalanx, the Spartans held their position, didn't bunch up or break off, they fought as a solid "professional unit" which was completely unheard of in city state Greece. I pitch battle it was their discipline that won the day, not their individual fighting ability.

2. Sparta created an image. A battle is half won when the enemy thinks he has already lost. The people of Sparta deliberately fostered an image that they were stronger, faster and more powerful than their enemies, even if individually they were not, for over 200 years the Spartans fed the view that they were invincible, and indeed they had the best soldiers, because they had soldiers, not militia. It was illegal for the Spartans to hold any other profession apart from a soldier. No other nation in Greece had such a thing until the Macedonians rose to power in the time of Alexander the Great.


Now, here is where we have a difference. While the Spartan was trained and disciplined to fight as part of unit. The Samurai was very much an individual warrior. The Samurai is almost the complete opposite in that he hones his own individual skills to a fine point, he is an all round fighter, skilled with sword, spear and bow. The Samurai trains for 1v1 fights while the Spartan trains to fight in pitched battle alongside other Spartiates.

I would say that there is the possibility that a Spartan soldier would overcome a Samurai 1v1, but more often than not the individually honed Samurai would win out against the Spartan because that is what he is trained to do, and exactly what the Spartan is trained not to do.

[Boyar'sNephew]

I am waiting for the episode where the Spartan defeats the Spetsnaz special forces operator. 'Cause Spartans had that kick-ass shield, ya know, and Spetsnaz don't.

[saxdude]

Dont take this show seriously people.

[Morbius Sire]

I am waiting for the episode where the Spartan defeats the Spetsnaz special forces operator. 'Cause Spartans had that kick-ass shield, ya know, and Spetsnaz don't.

I would have went for Spartan vs T90 MBT

[Double A]

Ya the show makes me mad a lot of the time. The battle that really boiled my blood was the Spartan vs Ninja.

I think the modern ones are more fair than the ancient ones.

[Geuvesa]

Majonga, thank you for the in-depth information, I saw comments earlier that mentioned that Spartans were not trained? They began training at the age of 7! Samurai and Spartans were both highly professional soldiers. Yes both have been incredibly pumped up beyond their truths through movies, and 300 was entertainment not fact. Who really believes that the Spartans ran around in nothing but a girdle, greaves, a helmet, and a crimson cape?

[♔Mandelus♔]

Majonga, thank you for the in-depth information, I saw comments earlier that mentioned that Spartans were not trained? They began training at the age of 7! Samurai and Spartans were both highly professional soldiers. Yes both have been incredibly pumped up beyond their truths through movies, and 300 was entertainment not fact. Who really believes that the Spartans ran around in nothing but a girdle, greaves, a helmet, and a crimson cape?

Well, the "300" are as most people know out of the Comics from Frank Miller. He made his Comics straight out of the story / history given by Herodot and so we have the "fairy tale looking" of "300" at least. The batte of the Thermopyles ist historical fact as the same way King Leonidas was fact and that he dies with Spartans there in fight against Persia under Xerxes the Great.
Frank Miller did it more or less 1:1 as the Greek historian(s) told the story. Let's take a closer look on the things there and we understand it more, why it looks "unrealistic" in the film and in the Comic itself by these 2 examples:

a) Xerxes the Great
The suffix "the Great" is given to historical persons who made in history great things, as for example Alexander the Great, Peter the Great, Frederic the Great and so on.
But the suffix "the Great" is here translated in great = tall, so Xerxes must be a tall men of 2,50 meters ....

b) The Inmortals
In origin the Inmortals were the Elite Warriors of Persia and git their name because any losses were a.s.a.p. full filled so that they had always full strength!
In "300" the inmortals must be of course zombi monsters = inmortal monsters as zombies are.

So "300" is in fact a 1:1 telling as Herodot and other historians told the story of this war and battle and it is the same style as the story from Homer with the Ilias or does anyone really believe the things told by Homer with creatures as for example with the cyclop?
But it has also a true core of it as the greek siege of Troja and so on, but it was the style to tell true history packed in fairy tales at this age.

@ Majonga
Being also historian with Diploma I can only agree with that what you wrote!

I will only also say as " @ all" that any single spartan had the abilities of being an officer at other greek cities and this was because of their professional status in comparsion to most others.
Remember the scene at the movie "300" when they meet the Arcadians:
Leonidas asked them what their professions are and they named several things as blacksmith, farmer and so on. The same question told to the spartans and their answer showed the true difference (and again a true core in the movie) why they are other to the rest of Greece, because their profession is war!

[Nicolaos]

in fact it werent 300 spartans fighting the persians. the number of greek troops in that battle was roughly 6000 men, still a bunch of brave men fighting at least 50000 persians.
there were not only spartans in that battle, also thespians, thebans and light auxiliary troops fought on greek side.

a comparison between spartans and samurai is almost impossible, the era and way of warfare is too different. how would the spartans have developed if they would have remained until 1500? what would have happened throughout history if the spartans were actually on an island like the samurai?
just imagine a spartan phalanx moving towards a bunch of samurai. the spartans would have to expect archer fire (and muscets) and close to close combat with sword armed samurai. i think in such a battle the samurai would have won, ancient soldiers vs medieval soldiers is not fair.

[Lysimachus]

a comparison between spartans and samurai is almost impossible, the era and way of warfare is too different. how would the spartans have developed if they would have remained until 1500?

They wouldn't exist. IIRC, the Agoge was plagued by the fact that it was limited in its manpower, hence why whenever the Spartiates were defeated in battle it would be a huge blow to the Spartans because practically of their forces would have been destroyed. Provided the Spartans did exist in to the 16th Century however, they would have had to have relaxed the expectations they imposed on their population because it was too strict.

what would have happened throughout history if the spartans were actually on an island like the samurai?

Then they would have ended up like Athens, relying massively on their navy.

just imagine a spartan phalanx moving towards a bunch of samurai. the spartans would have to expect archer fire (and muscets) and close to close combat with sword armed samurai. i think in such a battle the samurai would have won, ancient soldiers vs medieval soldiers is not fair.

Their two fighting styles were complete contrasts of each other. The samurai wanted to face their foes in a one-on-one duel, whereas the phalanx revolved around a coherent block of troops working as a team to defeat their foe. I have no idea how a battle between the Ancient Spartans and the Medieval Samurai would have ended up as, but just bear in mind that the Spartans did adapt to change. After Philip II of Macedon defeated the Greeks at Chaeronea, the Greeks would gradually introduce the sarissa in to their armies (including the Spartans), so it wouldn't be surprising if they made use of perhaps, captured enemy muskets along with their gunpowder.

[Count of Montesano]

more apt way to have said "not all of them were amazing warriors" would have been to say "most of them were bureaucrats and tax collectors."

Not every Samurai kept up to date on the latest methods of fighting, and generally were relegated to official duties in managing the country in more practical matters... This was true even during the warring states to a degree.

True but then again the Spartans also went through their own decline after the Peloponnesian War. So I'd have to imagine that in the Spike "scenario" you'd have the most battle-hardened survivor of the Persian Wars squaring off against the toughest samurai of the Sengoku period.

What I really don't get about this program is the experts never extrapolate from actual historical events. In past episodes, the Scottish highlanders beat the Zulus. This really makes no sense if you look at history. I don't believe that the Zulus - who defeated the best troops of the British Empire in several battles - would lose to medieval Scots.

If I was trying to match up the Spartans versus the Samurai, I'd look at which foes they historically had an easy time with, and which foes gave them a lot of trouble. For example, the Samurai would have the advantage of lightning fast horse archer attacks. How did the Spartans historically deal with similar attacks from the Persian horse archers? I've read that the Samurai at first struggled against the highly organized Mongol army. Would the Spartan phalanx give them similar problems?

But hey, that would require too much analysis. Spike TV is all about cheesy computer analysis and gimick weapons,