Suck!!!I'm a traceur of parkour and I can do awesome jumps!!!
The Blessed Helper
Helper of all. I will help all with all their problem
Which brings me to my main issue with these kind of interwebnetz wars; in the end, it doesn't matter which warrior could have been superior, it's all about which warrior has the largest group of fanbois. Both samurai and spartans have been tremendously hyped by (modern) media and turned into some kind of supernatural breeds of demi-god-like warriors.
Btw, the spartan is clearly cheating in any case.
At 0:30 or 0:31 you can see the spartan having the shield in his left hand. In 0:33 it's suddenly on his right. I say this fight was rigged!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taUHy...ayer_embedded#! there's the vid if anyone missed it
“The human eye is a wonderful device. With a little effort, it can fail to see even the most glaring injustice.”
In a phalanx the Spartans would rape anybody (well, apart from gunpowder armed units ) due to their society being focused just around their military and the men being trained from an extremely young age. Samurai's too were great fighters, in general, but they would certainly not be able to break through a line of Spartan hoplites.
1v1 the outcome would be pretty 50/50 and mostly dependant on individual circumstances IMO, but in greater numbers on both sides, there would be no doubt in the victor (assuming we aren't talking about 16th century Samurai armed with large amounts of gunpowder. Seriously that's 1600 years+ ahead though lol so a bit of an unfair contest there)
According to this poll, 80%* of TGW fans agree that "The mod team is devilishly handsome" *as of 12/10 (its true )
CPU - Intel i5 4670k @3.8 GHz | GPU - MSI GEFORCE GTX 770 LIGHTNING 2GB GDDR5 | RAM - 8GB DDR3 1600MHZ | MOBO - Z87 | HDD - 1TB | SSD - SAMSUNG 840 PRO SERIES 256GB SOLID STATE HARD DRIVE 2.5" | PSU - 750W | CASE - COOLERMASTER ENFORCER | MONITOR - 24" IIYAMA
"The challenge of modernity is to live without illusions and without becoming disillusioned. " - Antonio Gramsci
"Those who do not move, do not notice their chains." - Rosa Luxembourg
I wonder how many people who are disparaging the katana have ever trained with one. I'm not an expert to be sure, but I have some experience training with the katana when I lived in Japan. It's a superb weapon that in the hands of a master can easily slice a body in half (I've seen this demonstrated with tatami mats filling in for a torso). Now, I'm not saying that the katana could cut through a Spartan's shield. But one-on-one the Samurai would be aiming for any unprotected part of the Spartan's body. The katana is light enough that IMHO the Samurai would be able to eventually get past the Spartan's shield and take out his spear arm, leg, or neck.
In phalanx this would be much harder, but then again I'd bet the Samurai would soften the phalanx up with mounted archers, then fix the front of the phalanx with troops armed with Naginatas. Wikipedia states the Spartan dory was 2-3 meters in length. The Naginata is slightly shorter (2 meters) but still probably long enough to at least absorb the initial assault. The Samurai swordsmen could then put serious pressure on the phalanx, especially on the right flank where the Spartans would not benefit as much from their interlocking shields. The Samurai are the faster force, so it's very probable they would be able to pull off a successful flanking manuever.
In other words, the Samurai would use similar methods to destroying the phalanx as the Romans did. The Samurai would undoubtedly suffer greater casualties than the Romans as they lacked shields, but ancient Asian societies had a lot more manpower to burn than their Western counterparts.
In the particular situation they did with the weapons they used on deadliest warrior they probably got it right for this one. both of the warriors armor effectively blocked hits from the others weapons, except for the kabanto(sp?) but ill disregard that because its unwieldy as hell, atleast to my eyes it just scream stab me in the eyes when your holding it.
So for the spartan to win, he has to get past a weapon block, and hit an unarmored area.
for the samrui to land a deadly blow he has to 1 get past spartan weapon 2 get past spartan shield 3 land blow unarmored part of body. With a slashing weapon like the katana i can imagine this could be difficult, can a katana effectively stab?
It is blatantly obvious why the spartan wins in a computer simulation.
The samurai had 3 chances to fail on any blow they may make, while the spartan only two.
Can anyone tell me why the vikings preferred the shield? and does anyone know what the vikings used to say about the shield?
The samurais thought the shield to be a weakness and it was dishonorable, but that's a moral standard and because of it I believe it made them vulnerable in the battlefield.
The bronze and leather armour and bronze sword of the Spartan don't stand a chance against iron armour and iron swords let alone the steel armour and steel swords of the Samarui. Samarui also have the advantage of a thousand years of technology and tactics. The Samarui might not be able to get past the Spartans shield but there is no way that a Spartan could get past a Samarui's steel sword and steel armour with just a bronze sword.
Samarui had lighter and stronger composite armour giving them speed. The bronze armour of the spartans was heavy and much inferior to that of the Samarui. The Spartans would tire out more easily and the Spartan's helmet restricted his vision and so would have less battlefield awareness. The Spartans fought more varied enemies than the Samarui, however, the Spartans had an extremely rigid style of fighting and never ever adapted whereas the Samarui had an unusually high degree of tactical flexibility.
Good Grief, people watch this garbage?
This is literally the same as getting a figure of a knight and your toy Optimus Prime and smashing them together whilst making explosion noises
History should be studied, not mythologised. If you twist history, you fail to grasp the reason why history is so important; to learn where we come from, and through that, understand who we are (and learn not to make the same mistakes our forefathers made).
Last edited by Biggreenfellow; June 20, 2010 at 06:09 AM.
Here’s an image of the Viking Vs samurai, its not hard to tell which is by far the more sophisticated, but there is a few hundred years between them. I would think its similar between spartan and samurai.
Formerly quetzalcoatl. Proud leader of STW3 and member of the RTR, FATW and QNS teams.
The tests speak for themselves. I believe Deadliest Warrior 90% because, even if you think that one warrior should beat the other, unlike the audience the show puts their skills and weapons to the test and they get an idea on who is deadliest. As Max Geiger said in one of the Aftermaths whoever gets the edge doesnt count on the simulator much. Why 90%? Cause they leave some necessary tests out. The Al Capone vs Jesse James episode WAS ABSOLUTLEY REDICULOUS!
Advance to Contact. Duffer Mod.
learn more about how a Katana forged then speak again
they not the same as western swords or any others eastern swords
the unique way in forging make them unique
Pre-purchase Discount & Free DLCs: +35
A lot of units & playable factions: +50
Epic battles! & Good BAI: +100
Series Loyalty & 450 hours played: +225
INTERNAL POLITICS & Game-play issues: -150
Siege AI: -125
7 patches did not fix many major issues: -100
It doesn't matter if you give me Excalibur, it doesn't make me a superior warrior. This is a classical 'mine is bigger than yours' argument. I find the arrogance of some people astounding. Just because you believe the myths Hollywood has created doesn't make it an acceptable argument in a discussion.
It's like comparing Thai-boxing with kick-boxing. Sometimes the one would win, sometimes the other, but the only thing it will prove is the superiority of ONE fighter over the other, not the superiority of a style over another.
PS Don't bother responding to this with a '<insert style of preference>-boxing is leik, tot4lly sup3ri0r 1337ness yo', because I really don't give a .
LOL see this! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdY7D16EiPA
A 1500-1680 Total War FTW!!!
A katana even made as sharp as it can be will not slice through the thick armour that a Spartan would have and would have to get close in to attack a vital point. This is where the long blade would fail and the Spartan would and could simply drop his pike and go in sword and shield. Spartan's were equipped to win a battle with what they went in with. Samurai were equipped to do their job role in that battle.
No good boasting about uniqueness if it doesn't get the job done.
We Came, We Saw, We Ran Away!
I think the Spartan Viking and samurai are somewhere near equal in fighting prowess. I was watching a documentary earlier about bows and they showed an arrow from a longbow go through two layers of chain mail and pierce the body by around 4”, I expect a samurai bow could do the same. However samurai armour was designed to stop arrows as well hand held weapons.
1-0 to samurai.
The daneaxe was probably slower to use than the sword or spear, and when you raise it above your head you leave your body wide open to attack. Now if a Zulu spear can penetrate chain mail [as seen in the show], then surely a thrust from a spear or sword can do so.
However we have to imagine that the Vikings had stayed pagan until the 16th C and taken on the evolutions of armour that had occurred by then.
So you are looking at a Viking with full plate with all areas except eye slits covered. No arrow from a bow will penetrate that, nor almost any weapon, this is why the Europeans used poleaxes to literally batter the opponents. In this case I can see no way the samurai would win 9/10.
Equally we could go back to the 11th C and the samurai hasn’t changed much but the Viking is the old chain mail version.
Formerly quetzalcoatl. Proud leader of STW3 and member of the RTR, FATW and QNS teams.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)