Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

samurai vs spartan

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?

Well, perhaps 300 will prove me wrong, but I'm thinking the Samurai, who I feel is quicker and more flexible, and has a more powerful sword will be able to kill him.

Spartan. Ignoring any technology differences.

The Spartan culture far outpaces the Samurai culture. Spartans were raised spec ops form birth.

Spartan no doubt, their entire culture was based on warfare. I think of all time the Spartans 1 v 1 would rank 3rd. Behind jedi, and ninjas obviously.

I'd say a psychotic spartan but yet im not completly sure about it

the spartan is more than likely to win. I posted my reason in the other thread he made

I'd say, while I'd root for the Spartan, the samurai would win. The reason is that Spartans, while strong and durable warriors, only fought in a phalanx formation. Greek soldiers never went into single combat. Their warfare basically consisted of pushing their shields against the other side's until their line was broken, all the while stabbing with your spear until it broke and you had to use your sword. Mobility also suffered greatly due to the weight of the armour and the way the helmet blocked their vision and dampened their hearing. Samurai, on the other hand, trained specifically for single combat, had quite mobile armour, and used easily maneuverable weapons. I hate to say it, but the Spartan's only chance would be to stab the samurai with his spear on his first try. Therefore, the samurai has the advantage.

And Samurai never really "fought" either

Most Samurai "battles" only lasted a few seconds, were the two opponents would run at each other and do one or two slashes at critical points of the enemies body, defeating him. Samurai aren't traiend to fight in any prolonged engagement.

So I guess it's really a question of who gets hit first. If that's the case then the Spartan would win, as they would sometimes throw their spears at the enemy.

Originally posted by Blaxican
And Samurai never really "fought" either

Most Samurai "battles" only lasted a few seconds, were the two opponents would run at each other and do one or two slashes at critical points of the enemies body, defeating him. Samurai aren't traiend to fight in any prolonged engagement.

Huh? Someone's been watching too much Samurai anime.

EDITEDDDDDEEW

Originally posted by supremthor
samurai vs spartan

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?

From what we've seen from 300.... what armor?

Samurai, primarily because of the katana. A fine-edged steel long sword against bronze armor, and bronze swords ... sorry, but the Spartans would be disarmed in a hurry. Their shields were also wooden, with a plate of bronze laid on over it.

The samurai's weaponry alone would carry the day, as bronze weapons don't stand a chance against iron; let alone steel.

Samurai... more skilled and disciplined.

Originally posted by Seth Wynd
Samurai, primarily because of the katana. A fine-edged steel long sword against bronze armor, and bronze swords ... sorry, but the Spartans would be disarmed in a hurry. Their shields were also wooden, with a plate of bronze laid on over it.

The samurai's weaponry alone would carry the day, as bronze weapons don't stand a chance against iron; let alone steel.

Metal is metal. It doesn't matter if you get impaled in the chest by either a bronze or steel weapon... you're in trouble.

Originally posted by Blaxican
Metal is metal. It doesn't matter if you get impaled in the chest by either a bronze or steel weapon... you're in trouble.

Wow, it's amazing you completely missed the point of what I said.

Samurai could completely disarm a Spartan because of the fact they were using steel weaponry, which would make short work of the bronze that Spartans had. The bronze armor of the spartans wouldn't be able to take much abuse from the other samurai weaponry either, also because the difference in metals.

Its stupid to take technology into account. Thats not what were judging here. In an equal fight, the side that appeared later in history whill almost always win. Its like pitting logbowmen against archers, or artillery vs catapults...

We're judging the content of the people here. Not who would win based on thier knowledge of alloys.

Originally posted by supremthor
samurai vs spartan

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?

Read it again. He's specifically putting the weapons and armor into the equation. Which means, judging based on technology and the composition of their weapons is one of the things we're supposed to be doing.

Now correct me if I'm wrong but isn't it technically impossible for someone to cut through bronze armour with a Katana , simply because the blade is too thin and you'd need more strength then your average Samurai has ?

In a single swipe, I'd be inclined to say yes. Though after repeated strikes, it'd probably start to crack and break. Though, the bronze weaponry would likely fall apart before the armor did.

Originally posted by Seth Wynd
Samurai, primarily because of the katana. A fine-edged steel long sword against bronze armor, and bronze swords ... sorry, but the Spartans would be disarmed in a hurry. Their shields were also wooden, with a plate of bronze laid on over it.

The samurai's weaponry alone would carry the day, as bronze weapons don't stand a chance against iron; let alone steel.
A sword is just plain not cutting through a shield.

I second that.


But for me it's a toss up.

Originally posted by Blaxican
And Samurai never really "fought" either

Most Samurai "battles" only lasted a few seconds, were the two opponents would run at each other and do one or two slashes at critical points of the enemies body, defeating him. Samurai aren't traiend to fight in any prolonged engagement.

wow. its amazing how much you believe anime. its ludicrous. really. GET. A. LIFE.

Samurai fights could go on for hours, it depends on the skill.

Originally posted by King Kandy
A sword is just plain not cutting through a shield.

I don't know what to do. Point and laugh at you because you evidently didn't bother to read what I said, or ... well, it's mostly just point and laugh.

Originally posted by LifeInSepia
wow. its amazing how much you believe anime. its ludicrous. really. GET. A. LIFE.

Samurai fights could go on for hours, it depends on the skill.

You're a tool. Just shut up and go home.

My point was don't believe in ANime, were the samruai woudl fight and jump over roofs and sh*t. Samurai never did any of that in real lfie. Good job completely misunderstanding what I was saying.

Originally posted by Blaxican
You're a tool. Just shut up and go home.

My point was don't believe in ANime, were the samruai woudl fight and jump over roofs and sh*t. Samurai never did any of that in real lfie. Good job completely misunderstanding what I was saying.

He didn't misunderstand you; that "charge one another, make a few slashes, and it's all over in seconds" nonsense DIDN'T HAPPEN outside Anime. Samurai vs ordinary peasant warrior, and that MIGHT be the case. Samurai vs Samurai however, it very well could take a few hours, especially if both fighters are good and of approximately equal skill. The fact that the style of swordsmanship they used focused more on avoiding the sword just as much as blocking it (if not more), makes your claim of battles lasting only a few seconds even more ridiculous than it already is.

YOU are the one who needs to shut up, or at the very least; do some research. Even a meager amount.

Now it's YOU who needs to understand. Whether it's been scene in Anime or not is irrelevant, he is the one who drew up that conclusion that I was thinking of Anime when in reality I was actually telling people to not get anime sword fighting confused with real sword fighting. Fail.




This is the message I was trying to give. You can't tell ME what my point was. Until you find a quote of me saying that Anime sword fighting is real, feel Free to shut up and go back to your *** forums.

I wouldn't have been quite as pissed off if the tool didn't just come into this thread to bash me for his own misunderstanding, then leave.

Originally posted by Blaxican
Now it's YOU who needs to understand. Whether it's been scene in Anime or not is irrelevant, he is the one who drew up that conclusion that I was thinking of Anime when in reality I was actually telling people to not get anime sword fighting confused with real sword fighting. Fail.




This is the message I was trying to give. You can't tell ME what my point was. Until you find a quote of me saying that Anime sword fighting is real, feel Free to shut up and go back to your *** forums.

I wouldn't have been quite as pissed off if the tool didn't just come into this thread to bash me for his own misunderstanding, then leave.

Originally posted by Blaxican
And Samurai never really "fought" either

Most Samurai "battles" only lasted a few seconds, were the two opponents would run at each other and do one or two slashes at critical points of the enemies body, defeating him. Samurai aren't traiend to fight in any prolonged engagement.

Fail.

Fail.

Originally posted by LifeInSepia
wow. its amazing how much you believe anime. its ludicrous. really. GET. A. LIFE.

Samurai fights could go on for hours, it depends on the skill.

I find it Ironic how the guy with a Halo sig who repeatedly posts in most inane forum ( Off Topic) somehow thinks he can criticize a guy for believing Anime.

Is there a problem with people posting in the Off Topic Forum? People just happen to be relaxed and playful when they/we post there.

Anyway, back on topic and less about whether the actions of 2D characters actually reflect the truth of the real world...

I honestly think that the Samurai would win this fight. I'm not exactly an expert on either one, but I think that the strength of the Spartans was their phalanx and their ability to fight as a cohesive unit.

Originally posted by supremthor
samurai vs spartan

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?

One on one: Samurai (more advanced armor, better close-up fighter)

Army vs Army: Spartans (the phalanx does wonders)

Samurai.

An army of sheep lead by a lion will defeat army of lions lead by a sheep.

You do know that army vs. army the Samurai would stand off and shoot the phalanx down, wouldn't you? There's a reason that formation went out of fashion. There's no getting around the fact that in both equipment and tactics these comparisons are more than a millennia apart.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness

An army of sheep lead by a lion will defeat army of lions lead by a sheep.

That completely boggles my mind.

I *think* I get it...

"A disciplined army that works together and is led by a brave fighter will always beat an army made entirely of brave warriors that fight individually rather than as a group."

Army vs Army? Remember, in "300" they only stood their ground for so long because they had a huge advantage using the small passage. Added to that Samurai will likely outsmart them. Their flexible and cunning, and they will just flank them or something.

Remember what happened with the spartans in "300"

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Samurai.

An army of sheep lead by a lion will defeat army of lions lead by a sheep.

This of course true only figuratively. One or two Lions could slaughter an entire flock of Sheep regardless of who their leader is !

Originally posted by Seth Wynd
I *think* I get it...

"A disciplined army that works together and is led by a brave fighter will always beat an army made entirely of brave warriors that fight individually rather than as a group."

That does make sense.

The Spartan would win due to the range of his weapon, the Phalanx was for battle, in large scale, if it's one on one the lack of a man on each side would hardly be missed, and they were trained to wrestle and fight one on one from 7 years of age, the Samurai although they were very skilled only had about 5% of the amount of Samurai that actually had good skill, and only another 5% in that, that held the greats like Musashi, so the average Spartan would eliminate the average Samurai, the lack of Samurai power is due to the Samurai only being high stature and new people unless they were in the family line and male would fight, and they were constantly at war with themselves so the good warriors would die from fatigue and being overwhelmed or like Musashi go into a more peaceful way of life and write a book(s), while all Spartan men and boys were skilled warriors, they had the average Spartan and the top 5% would be veterans with the resolve to not fear the enemy. Technology would not matter because the Katana was like the Spartan sword, backup, a spear was for stabbing and would get caught on the bronze shield, or simply be deflected while the Samurai would have a 2 handed spear and not be able to parry the Spartan stabs quickly especially with them deflecting the blows made on them.

Originally posted by lancethebrave
The Spartan would win due to the range of his weapon, the Phalanx was for battle, in large scale, if it's one on one the lack of a man on each side would hardly be missed, and they were trained to wrestle and fight one on one from 7 years of age, the Samurai although they were very skilled only had about 5% of the amount of Samurai that actually had good skill, and only another 5% in that, that held the greats like Musashi, so the average Spartan would eliminate the average Samurai, the lack of Samurai power is due to the Samurai only being high stature and new people unless they were in the family line and male would fight, and they were constantly at war with themselves so the good warriors would die from fatigue and being overwhelmed or like Musashi go into a more peaceful way of life and write a book(s), while all Spartan men and boys were skilled warriors, they had the average Spartan and the top 5% would be veterans with the resolve to not fear the enemy. Technology would not matter because the Katana was like the Spartan sword, backup, a spear was for stabbing and would get caught on the bronze shield, or simply be deflected while the Samurai would have a 2 handed spear and not be able to parry the Spartan stabs quickly especially with them deflecting the blows made on them.

Out of curiousity, does your keyboard have that little thing on the right side that says "Enter" on it?

it might but if you can read it straight up i dont think it would matter

Originally posted by lancethebrave
The Spartan would win due to the range of his weapon, the Phalanx was for battle, in large scale, if it's one on one the lack of a man on each side would hardly be missed, and they were trained to wrestle and fight one on one from 7 years of age, the Samurai although they were very skilled only had about 5% of the amount of Samurai that actually had good skill, and only another 5% in that, that held the greats like Musashi, so the average Spartan would eliminate the average Samurai, the lack of Samurai power is due to the Samurai only being high stature and new people unless they were in the family line and male would fight, and they were constantly at war with themselves so the good warriors would die from fatigue and being overwhelmed or like Musashi go into a more peaceful way of life and write a book(s), while all Spartan men and boys were skilled warriors, they had the average Spartan and the top 5% would be veterans with the resolve to not fear the enemy. Technology would not matter because the Katana was like the Spartan sword, backup, a spear was for stabbing and would get caught on the bronze shield, or simply be deflected while the Samurai would have a 2 handed spear and not be able to parry the Spartan stabs quickly especially with them deflecting the blows made on them.

Except, as I say, the samurai would stand off and shoot the slow, inflexible phalanx down.

The phalanx is an entirely useless formation in the era the Samurai fought in.

the phalanx would be useless in 1v1 combat so the spartan wouldnt use it, the idea of the phalanx was to lock shields together so that your army would be harder to kill, it was only used in large scale warfare, the spartan wouldnt bother with it and would defend until an opening came up.

the spartans could throw their spears, the samurais spears were far too heavy and not designed for that, the spartans had shields the samurai did not, the spartans were more balanced and had more combat veterancy and were more skilled than the samurai, a great sword will lose against a knife if the skill is higher for the knife wielder.

also the samurai were mostly rich slobs and very few would even bother mastering their style entirely, the spartans would have had higher pain resistance and speed due to their required strength, and training, and would have more endurance for the same reason.

Originally posted by lancethebrave
the phalanx would be useless in 1v1 combat so the spartan wouldnt use it, the idea of the phalanx was to lock shields together so that your army would be harder to kill, it was only used in large scale warfare, the spartan wouldnt bother with it and would defend until an opening came up.

the spartans could throw their spears, the samurais spears were far too heavy and not designed for that, the spartans had shields the samurai did not, the spartans were more balanced and had more combat veterancy and were more skilled than the samurai, a great sword will lose against a knife if the skill is higher for the knife wielder.

also the samurai were mostly rich slobs and very few would even bother mastering their style entirely, the spartans would have had higher pain resistance and speed due to their required strength, and training, and would have more endurance for the same reason.

Uh...a few problems

1.) No spartan would throw their spear unless absolutely necessary, for the same reason that a vast majority of the world's armies don't train their soldiers in knife-throwing today. Throwing away a WEAPON doesn't make much tactical sense; and if they miss, it means running past the enemy to go pick it up again.

2.) The samurai had no sheilds because their swordsmanship focused more on parrying or dodging any attack, not on blocking it. Please do your research.

3.) "the spartans had more combat veterancy" ... now, I know you've either done one of two things here: didn't word what you wanted to say properly, or you're outright making things up. You can't say either side was more experienced in combat unless you measure the life span and combat deployment of EVERY SOLDIER from both sides.

4.) They were more skilled than the samurai? You realize samurai had to know how to ride, use 3 different types of swords, learn how to use spears on top of that, learn how to ride, for a short time also learn how to use firearms, AND if they elected to, use a longbow? Spartans were trained in the phalanx, fighting with a spear, hand-to-hand combat, and fighting with the Xiphos as a backup weapon. Spartan training placed more emphasis on stealth, rather than heavy combat as many people would like to believe. The Samurai however, were trained to be at the front lines in any war their master ordered them into.

5.) You're largely making things up again in your last paragraph. If samurai didn't bother to learn their style completely, were lazy slobs, etc, they wouldn't be able to find a master. Which would mean, they wouldn't be Samurai.

nice, now you could be a skilled fighter and that wouldn't make you a samurai, that title came from stature, and most did not have that great a skill, few would even be able to master it if they tried their hardest, but if they were to be called out to war then they would, the average samurai may be able to use more weapons, but the average samurai was not that skilled of a fighter, the good ones kept killing each other off which reduced their number, and then in large scale combat most armies would have been able to defeat them due to their population, but mostly because their battles were not nearly as efficient as they could have been, do to the lack of skill/experience.

also i was speaking off the top of my head so excuse the contradictory or dull things in my paragraphs. i was speaking in generalizations, of course no samurai we know the name of was lazy, because we know their name, but if they had simply been killed by a great and were remembered that way, they would be tossed into the general area, and yes throwing away a weapon is foolish, and if required would be done.

i have taken Kendo and i know all about that, and i would still prefer to have a shield to block of a broad attack than a sword, and its harder to parry with a spear, as well as harder to dodge.

and with the combat veterancy thats a generalization, as i said earlier in this reply most samurai were killing each other off, the phalanx was good for reducing the amount of kills per battle while samurai would go into battle and have plenty dead and then in times of peace duel and kill each other that way.

now if it were well known fighters against each other, such as Miyamoto Musashi or Kojiro Sasaki and Leonidas or Menelaus, two rather well known people from their ages, my bet would be on Musashi or Kojiro winning the fight, Musashi because of his style Niten Ichi Ryu, and Kojiro because he was said to be the most difficult opponent Musashi faced, while Menelaus and Leonidas would have had their standard spear and shield, which would not have been a match for the quick and multiple blows that Musashi or Kojiro could give at a time, but Musashi and Kojiro were in the top percent of the top percent which would make them not included in the general populations skill level

Originally posted by Burnt Pancakes
This of course true only figuratively. One or two Lions could slaughter an entire flock of Sheep regardless of who their leader is !

This is an Arabic proverb, which is not supposed to be ''literal'', and you taking it literal is just absurd, for the simple reason that you assume that animals such as sheep and lion are able to understand the concept of war or state. (since war occurs only when there is a concept of some kind of state type order)

So let me make it more contemporary for you -


Id rather have a German division in front of me, than a French one behind me.

...


Let me say it slowly.

I.Was.Joking .

Really? I doubt that.

You were joking about 2 lions being able to slaughter a flock of sheep? Interesting.

I was referring to this:



Duh, I know it was not supposed to be taken literally What do you think the smiley was there for?

Originally posted by lancethebrave
the phalanx would be useless in 1v1 combat so the spartan wouldnt use it, the idea of the phalanx was to lock shields together so that your army would be harder to kill, it was only used in large scale warfare, the spartan wouldnt bother with it and would defend until an opening came up.

the spartans could throw their spears, the samurais spears were far too heavy and not designed for that, the spartans had shields the samurai did not, the spartans were more balanced and had more combat veterancy and were more skilled than the samurai, a great sword will lose against a knife if the skill is higher for the knife wielder.

also the samurai were mostly rich slobs and very few would even bother mastering their style entirely, the spartans would have had higher pain resistance and speed due to their required strength, and training, and would have more endurance for the same reason.

Spears?

The Samurai use BOWS, genius!

Forgive me if I'm wrong somewhere in this, but weren't the Spartans far more focused and drilled on relative mass destruction and conquer?
Props to the samurai, but their fairly passive tactics and honor-based style were pretty restrictive.
In a 1 to 1 battle I'm not sure, but in a Spartan-Japanese battle, my money is on the Spartans.

That's really not an intelligent analysis. All this continual bullcrap about 'honour' fighting... samurai were trained soldiers that won BATTLES. They didn't go around duelling all the damn time. They used swords, spears, bows and horsemen as appropriate and they used them with relatively sophisitcated tactics in a period, as I say, over a THOUSAND years affter the Spartans. How in the hell can you ever expect there to be parity there?

I mean good lord, the Athenians massacred Spartan phalanxes with the use of light troops. If they could do it then, what is to stop the Jqapanese doing it so many centuries later?

The phalanx formation is a pile of crap against th tactics the samurai would emply. Medieval armies would destroy Spartans. So would samurai. It's no contest.

i agree with ush, the samurai werent the honour bound 1 on 1 fighters that they are stereotypically made out to be..they had much better training with many types of weapons, and they have much more effective tactics

Samurai would win every single time- technological difference comes into play,and as single warriors Spartans suck comparing to samurai- that was phalanx what ruled the balltefield. If you are so eager to put that in "Asia vs Europe" fomat, then why don't you try "Samurai vs a medieval knight (XV century one)".
By the way, the result of that fight "Samurai vs XV century european knight" would be surprising. In one-to-one fight, european knight wins. That's because of different style of fencing. Samurai preffered slashing style, and their armour is designed to take slashes, not piercing hits. On the other hand, european breastplates are designed to resist both slashing and piercing hits, and european fencing style is more about piercing.

Back to topic, another reason why Samurai would dominate is the undeveloped close-up fighting skills of Spartans. In close combat long "sarissa" spear would be much of a disadvantage.

The Spartan dies. Their strength lies in numbers, and their weapon is too short, along with the fact their shield is too heavy to be used effectively in one-on-one.

And no, like others have said, Samurai were not 1 on 1 specialists until the Shogun era; before, they were primarily horse archers.

Quite clearly the samurai,
keep in mind that the samurai are the elite Japanese soldiers, only the ones that had training on all weapons became samurai;
they are used to fighting soldiers that are armed with spears and on foot (the ashigaru);
furthermore they do not only use the katana but also bow and arrow, able to pierce a harness, they also have the short throwing spears and have long lances the naginata. Because they are mounted they have a large advantage over the spartans.

Spartan

You have to remember that they were both very well- trained, but the spartans were BRED to fight. They would use strong athletic women and breed them with a warrior and their offspring would be a warrior. Spartans I think would pummel samurai. Think about horses who were bred \to run the triple crown. Well an elite spartan warrior would be Secritariat.

didn't the Samurai live like, 1000 years after the Spartans?

I think that much advance in military technology and tactics might give them a slight edge?

I might be wrong though...

Originally posted by inimalist
didn't the Samurai live like, 1000 years after the Spartans?

I think that much advance in military technology and tactics might give them a slight edge?

I might be wrong though...

Depends, doesn't it?

Can the best contemporary samurai sword (rumored to be hammered up to 20,000 for the best) cut the best made Spartan's battle ready sword?

Mythbusters did something on this, I think. But I don't think they used bronze. I would think that I strong Spartan and a gifted samurai could cause a nice slice into that relatively soft bronze...if not an "all the way through".



This is adding a "what if" to the scenario. The Japanese Samurai historians would probably like to romanticize that cutting through a bronze age weapon would be easy for the average Samurai, but that wouldn't be fair because it's not scientific. However, it did happen on more than one occasion that a sword was broken in a fight. I don't think it was often, but it did occur at times.

Samurai would slaughter the spartans, their tatics and tech would be too great for them

Originally posted by jalek moye
Samurai would slaughter the spartans, their tatics and tech would be too great for them

Yea, even unto the morning of their children's children's chidlren's souls.

Either could logically win, as it would depend heavily on the personal skill of each soldier.

The Samurai would have the advantage of lighter armor/mobility. While the Spartan's spear/shield combo would give him the reach advantage, though he'd be at a disadvantage once/if the Samurai closed in.

Having said that, Gerard's abs FTW.

Originally posted by Robtard
Having said that, Gerard's abs FTW.

Gay?







yes

Technology is going to be the deciding factor here. The Samurai would be better defended in his armor and their Katana blade would easily pierce any body armor that a Spartan may be dawning.

The Spartan would have his standard short sword, light leather armor and his rounded curved shield. He may or may not have a spear. That would depend on his class. For sake of argument though, the thread starter has deemed that the Spartan has his Spear.

The Samurai is going to be accustomed to spears and will most likely know how to defend and counter against one. This isn't to say that the Spartan cannot better the Samurai with his skill but it should be acknowledged that the Samurai would most likely be aware of the battle stances involved in using a spear. I think the Samurais' biggest problem will be the Spartans Shield. However, i'm sure that a well placed strike with a Katana blade will pierce the Spartans shield. I think that the Samurais' Armor, Katana blade and awareness in swordplay will be to much for the Spartan.

The Spartans biggest advantage will be the movie 300 Spartans were lethal soldiers for sure but no more than any other trained killing machine. The Spartans most deadly asset was their intelligence and strategic prowess. Where their enemies employed aging tactics in their warfare. The Spartans implemented cutting edge technology and formations such as the Phalanx. It was these things, coupled with their discipline that made them a force to reckoned with more than anything. The Spartans often fought armies as conditioned as themselves but due to naive command and dated technology and strategies, the Spartans would often be victorious.

The Samurai trained and studied warfare until they died. The stance of a Master Samurai is something to behold. Something i don't think a Spartan would be able to counter, attack or defend against for very long.

Spartans were like living tanks but katanas can cut through tanks.

QED

One thing of note, a well made Katana is arguably the finest edged weapon ever made; it's basically a giant razorblade.

That is the reason why duels/fights in ancient Japan weren't drawn out, one combatant usually died after the first well placed hit, the Katana simply evicerated him/her and could cut through the leather/wood/lacker based Samurai armor with ease. Though Samurai did use full plated armor, it really depends on the era.

Point there, Katanas aren't designed to trade blows with each other for long and they aren't designed to slice through metal, though it is possible, so Samurai's are trained to kill in as few strikes as possible, to find the weak points and to do so as a single warrior; not a mass unit. As far as stabbing with a Katana, the design of the blade makes it difficult to do so.

Having said that, I still think the Samurai has the edge, he could side-stepped the spear thrust and cut it in half, close the distance and deliver a death stroke easier than the Spartan could, imo. This is taking into account that both are at the same skill level in their respective disciplines of combat.

edit: A good fight would be a feudal Japan army vs a Spartan army, unit-style combat is were the Spartans excelled.

Originally posted by Council#13
From what we've seen from 300.... what armor? their undies haermm

Originally posted by Robtard
One thing of note, a well made Katana is arguably the finest edged weapon ever made; it's basically a giant razorblade.

That is the reason why duels/fights in ancient Japan weren't drawn out, one combatant usually died after the first well placed hit, the Katana simply evicerated him/her and could cut through the leather/wood/lacker based Samurai armor with ease. Though Samurai did use full plated armor, it really depends on the era.

Point there, Katanas aren't designed to trade blows with each other for long and they aren't designed to slice through metal, though it is possible, so Samurai's are trained to kill in as few strikes as possible, to find the weak points and to do so as a single warrior; not a mass unit. As far as stabbing with a Katana, the design of the blade makes it difficult to do so.

Having said that, I still think the Samurai has the edge, he could side-stepped the spear thrust and cut it in half, close the distance and deliver a death stroke easier than the Spartan could, imo. This is taking into account that both are at the same skill level in their respective disciplines of combat.

edit: A good fight would be a feudal Japan army vs a Spartan army, unit-style combat is were the Spartans excelled.

Indeed.

If I'm not mistaken, I think the title for the world's most deadly duelist was a Japanese samurai. Name eludes me at the moment.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Indeed.

If I'm not mistaken, I think the title for the world's most deadly duelist was a Japanese samurai. Name eludes me at the moment.

Musashi Miyamoto.

Originally posted by supremthor
samurai vs spartan

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?

Anyone else pick up on the sexual innuendo?

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Anyone else pick up on the sexual innuendo?
Lol apon a second read.....yes.
You dirty man gav for picking that up.

Oh and three cheers for the samurai.
If it were me, **** the spartan's sheild up.
Force him to meet me close.
Off with his head!

Originally posted by Wei Phoenix
Musashi Miyamoto.

No, I don't think it's that guy. I know who he is. This other guy had lighter colored hair...I believe. (Light brown instead of the typical dark brown.)

Originally posted by dadudemon
No, I don't think it's that guy. I know who he is. This other guy had lighter colored hair...I believe. (Light brown instead of the typical dark brown.)

The only one that was said to truly rival him was Kojiro Sasaki.

Originally posted by Wei Phoenix
The only one that was said to truly rival him was Kojiro Sasaki.

Was Masaashi really the best duelist in recorded Japanese history?






What color was his lightsaber?





LOL, sorry, couldn't resist. But, seriously, I thought that there was nothe duelist, who was eventually killed in a duel, that was more "deathly" than Masashi?

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Anyone else pick up on the sexual innuendo?

No, can you gay-it out for us?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Was Masaashi really the best duelist in recorded Japanese history?






What color was his lightsaber?





LOL, sorry, couldn't resist. But, seriously, I thought that there was nothe duelist, who was eventually killed in a duel, that was more "deathly" than Masashi?

Well he uses a red and blue saber in Onimusha Blade Warriors.

Well Musashi did kill Kojiro aka Ganryu Kojiro and he used a nodachi. He also invented the Swallow Cut technique.

Samurai, the superior speed, skill, armor and sword give the Samurai the edge, well not just the edge the whole step actually.

Originally posted by Wei Phoenix
Well he uses a red and blue saber in Onimusha Blade Warriors.

Well Musashi did kill Kojiro aka Ganryu Kojiro and he used a nodachi. He also invented the Swallow Cut technique.

Indeed. He killed freakin' Kojiro with a wooden stick! That's just insane. That was such a high caliber/important duel that it's highly unlikely that that was embelished. Suck it, Kojiro.


Well, it could be Kojiro that I'm thinking of. They were known as the most deadly duelist, racking up the most kills of any duelists (not the philosophical version, lol) in all of recorded history. That can't be Musashi.


Seriously, I can see the old Japanese drawing of this duelist in my head right now. He was like a half breed Japanese or something. His hair was a bit reddish in color, etc.


I really suck with names. I'll try to find who I'm talking about later. I'm at work.


But, yeah, guys like that are awesome to read about.





And most duels last mere moments. Blaxican is right. Katana's and all their incarnates are excellent human killing weapons. I don't remember the name of the show (It was on discovery), but it was over war crafts (the craft of war, not the game series from Blizzard.) deadliest weapons. I think they measured and decided on the katana as the best killing weapon. One good slash from a very practiced and strong katana duelist could be enough to cut most men clean in half. (I highly doubt the guy on the show was as skilled as some better katana users in 1600s Japan.)



On another note, I know tons of things about the US and it's history. I've studied it for a long time and I feel rather versed, especially for being a virtual history layman. However, Japan has established and documented states for thousands of years. I barely know anything (relative to my US history knowledge.) I keep reading and researching and reading, and it only becomes more and more daunting as I keep learning about Japan's history. It's so unique and has tons upon tons of history. It's kind of depressing knowing that I will probably only see the tip of the iceberg, even with professional education on Japanese history. The same can be said of other great past and present states. However, Japan's history is the only place I've run into so far that made me seem so ignorant.

I say Spartans for the simple fact that Samuria's get too much love.

I say Samurai simply because he will win

Originally posted by Utrigita
I say Samurai simply because he will win

Quite an important aspect of any fight, winning

honestly i dont hear any stories about samurais getting thrown into the wilderness with crazy arse creatures around.. from when theyre like 8-9
spartan takes this one with ease..

Originally posted by dadudemon
Indeed. He killed freakin' Kojiro with a wooden stick! That's just insane. That was such a high caliber/important duel that it's highly unlikely that that was embelished. Suck it, Kojiro.


Well, it could be Kojiro that I'm thinking of. They were known as the most deadly duelist, racking up the most kills of any duelists (not the philosophical version, lol) in all of recorded history. That can't be Musashi.


Seriously, I can see the old Japanese drawing of this duelist in my head right now. He was like a half breed Japanese or something. His hair was a bit reddish in color, etc.


I really suck with names. I'll try to find who I'm talking about later. I'm at work.


But, yeah, guys like that are awesome to read about.





And most duels last mere moments. Blaxican is right. Katana's and all their incarnates are excellent human killing weapons. I don't remember the name of the show (It was on discovery), but it was over war crafts (the craft of war, not the game series from Blizzard.) deadliest weapons. I think they measured and decided on the katana as the best killing weapon. One good slash from a very practiced and strong katana duelist could be enough to cut most men clean in half. (I highly doubt the guy on the show was as skilled as some better katana users in 1600s Japan.)



On another note, I know tons of things about the US and it's history. I've studied it for a long time and I feel rather versed, especially for being a virtual history layman. However, Japan has established and documented states for thousands of years. I barely know anything (relative to my US history knowledge.) I keep reading and researching and reading, and it only becomes more and more daunting as I keep learning about Japan's history. It's so unique and has tons upon tons of history. It's kind of depressing knowing that I will probably only see the tip of the iceberg, even with professional education on Japanese history. The same can be said of other great past and present states. However, Japan's history is the only place I've run into so far that made me seem so ignorant.

Yeah the battle of Ganryu something. Musashi arrived like 3 hours late to the battle and eventually killed him with the paddle for his boat.

Hey I noticed allot of the se blank Vs Blank threads on this forum. You should check out

www dot banterbiscuit dot com

Its a geek debate web show where we get together each week and film debates on subjects like Obi vs. Gandolf and Iron man Vs. Mega man.

We have 4 eps up so far with more coming every monday.

Also note that we are giving away all four seasons of futuram in honor of this weeks debate.

Dont forget to check out the forums!

Oh and samurai wins hands down agility vs heavy weapon wins every time.

I'd like to contribute a few things, and I'll be back later for my assessment.

It's in my opinion that the Spartan will be physically superior to Samurai. Extensive physical exercise was central Spartan life as Herodotus points out. Now, Herodotus tends to embellish things a bit, along with Homer, but Polybius backs up the idea when he points out that Alexander's soldiers trained with weighted hoplons and swords just like the Spartans. I believe the extra conditioning could be a deciding factor if the fight plays out longer than the Samurai would like it to.

The Spartan will be more heavily armored than the Samurai. This might not be too much of a factor, as one blow for either fighter could end the fight, but extra armor could turn a devastating hit into a glancing blow.

The Spartan's shield offers him huge protection and allows him to deliver strikes while remaining relatively protected. I personally believe that the Spartan's use of his shield will give him the win in this fight.

I believe the Samurai's only advantage in this fight his superior weaponry. Everything else is heavily debatable.

tl;dr?

Spartans armor > Samurai's armor
Spartans physical training > Samurai's physical training
Spartans weaponry < Samurai weaponry

The Spartan would be more heavily armored? Really?

In accord with history, spartan used xyphos only during war battles mainly, but also the falcata. One on one, hand to hand, they used the falcata "always" (guards, etc.) . Both swords were made from iron, except the grip, although sometimes even the blade were made from bronze (but this was less common). Spartans had many battles with different armies from different countries, including the Midwest army, and they won. Now, tell me only one battle that the samurais won against any different army than themselves. Samurai sword cannot go throughout the spartan shield, neither the helmet, or any armor from the spartans. However, xyphos cannot go throughout either, but the falcata can. It is very hard to see how a samurai army, or one samurai versus one spartan will win. The samurais were fast with exceptional technique with the katana, also the spartans, plus they were physically categorized as athletes.

Spartans would own

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Samurai.

An army of sheep lead by a lion will defeat army of lions lead by a sheep.

i would seriously like to put this into practice and see if it holds true.

Originally posted by hist99
In accord with history, spartan used xyphos only during war battles mainly, but also the falcata. One on one, hand to hand, they used the falcata "always" (guards, etc.) . Both swords were made from iron, except the grip, although sometimes even the blade were made from bronze (but this was less common). Spartans had many battles with different armies from different countries, including the Midwest army, and they won. Now, tell me only one battle that the samurais won against any different army than themselves. Samurai sword cannot go throughout the spartan shield, neither the helmet, or any armor from the spartans. However, xyphos cannot go throughout either, but the falcata can. It is very hard to see how a samurai army, or one samurai versus one spartan will win. The samurais were fast with exceptional technique with the katana, also the spartans, plus they were physically categorized as athletes.

I'm for one pretty certain that the Samurai sword will be capable of cutting through the bronze in the armor and the combi of wood and bronze in the shield without to much difficulty.

spartan!

Originally posted by Utrigita
I'm for one pretty certain that the Samurai sword will be capable of cutting through the bronze in the armor and the combi of wood and bronze in the shield without to much difficulty.

Odd considering that a katana's were only designed to get through really shitty armor.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Odd considering that a katana's were only designed to get through really shitty armor.

It was also designed to cut straight through a person so that it wouldn't get stuck.

Originally posted by Utrigita
It was also designed to cut straight through a person so that it wouldn't get stuck.

a) There's no evidence of that. b) You think Japanese people are made of armor?

Does the Samurai get his horse and his bow for this fight? If so then he wins:

1) More advanced weapons
2) More advanced (although not necessarily thicker/stronger) armor
3) Training puts more emphasize on 1 on 1 fighting, whereas a Spartan is trained to fight with other Spartans as a unit.
4) Bow and arrow
5) Is mounted

Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall
Does the Samurai get his horse and his bow for this fight? If so then he wins:

1) More advanced weapons
2) More advanced (although not necessarily thicker/stronger) armor
3) Training puts more emphasize on 1 on 1 fighting, whereas a Spartan is trained to fight with other Spartans as a unit.
4) Bow and arrow
5) Is mounted

You could just read the first post.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
a) There's no evidence of that.

Cept the discovery channel doing tests with various bladed weapons and literally proving that it could cut straight through a peron's torso. It got the "nod" for the best bladed weapon.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Cept the discovery channel doing tests with various bladed weapons and literally proving that it could cut straight through a peron's torso. It got the "nod" for the best bladed weapon.

Really? That's pretty cool.

I still doubt the blades would penetrate Greek armor or shields very easily.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Really? That's pretty cool.

I still doubt the blades would penetrate Greek armor or shields very easily.

Actually, it'd cut through those bronze shields fairly easily. They could cut through japanese helmets and skulls (which is what they were designed to do). I don't see a problem with cutting through a bronze iron and wooden shield. It'd probably scare the crap out of the Spartan. It should, quite easily, stab right through the bronze and leather armor.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Actually, it'd cut through those bronze shields fairly easily. They could cut through japanese helmets and skulls (which is what they were designed to do). I don't see a problem with cutting through a bronze iron and wooden shield. It'd probably scare the crap out of the Spartan. It should, quite easily, stab right through the bronze and leather armor.

The metal quality in Japan was very poor and their armor quality would probably have reflected that so swords wouldn't have reflected a need to cut through it. I really do doubt their ability to cut through good quality shields (at least) like the Spartans would probably have had.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The metal quality in Japan was very poor and their armor quality would probably have reflected that so swords wouldn't have reflected a need to cut through it.


I'm not sure what you're talking about. Japan's "steel" was the strongest and hardest in the world (at the time). Some sword makers hammered their swords over 20,000 times, making it absurdly strong and durable, even by today's standards for steel.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I really do doubt their ability to cut through good quality shields (at least) like the Spartans would probably have had.

I don't doubt it, at all. Even a claymore, with it's crude cutting edge, would cut through one of those shields.

The thing is that a Samurai's training is more focused on one on one combat, whereas a Spartan is trained to fight in a phalanx with fellow Spartans. Therefore, a Samurai would be better trained for a scenario like this.

Samurai 7/10

Originally posted by dadudemon
I'm not sure what you're talking about. Japan's "steel" was the strongest and hardest in the world (at the time). Some sword makers hammered their swords over 20,000 times, making it absurdly strong and durable, even by today's standards for steel.

Japanese metal ore is rare and poor in quality. What little armor was available to people other than nobles was not very good because the process of making it more useful was so expensive. Iron helmets certainly wouldn't have been as good as those in the West.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I don't doubt it, at all. Even a claymore, with it's crude cutting edge, would cut through one of those shields.

Huh.

If the Spartan can keep control of his shield he will win. If he loses his shield he will die quickly.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
a) There's no evidence of that. b) You think Japanese people are made of armor?

a.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5erZqSyiT38

1:20

The Japanese sword is perfectly capable of cutting through iron plates

On another note 5:10

"with no shield to hide behind the swordsman had to rely on reflexes alone"

Also taking 7:25 into consideration a Samurai wouldn't engage a peasent.

etc etc

b.) My main point was that if you are making a blade (like DD already mentioned they showed on Discovery) with the sole intention of cutting through the equipment of your opponent and then through him and then onwards, that puts the sword imo above anything the Spartan is capable of defending himself against.

Originally posted by Utrigita
a.)

that puts the sword imo above anything the Spartan is capable of defending himself against.


The Spartans' shield offers incredible defense against a Katana blade.

Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
The Spartans' shield offers incredible defense against a Katana blade.

Based on? If it's a combination of a thin layer of bronze on the outside and then pure Wood the rest of the way, I don't see it hold very well.

Originally posted by Utrigita
Based on? If it's a combination of a thin layer of bronze on the outside and then pure Wood the rest of the way, I don't see it hold very well.

Based on fighting tactics. A Katana blade requires a very particular technique to be fully effective. In a duel the Samurai would focus their strengths and energy on only a few strikes. A Samurai wouldn't un-sheath his blade until attack was imminent. There is no way to prove that a Samurai would slive cleanly through a Spartans shield. I really don't see why a Samurai would take this risk, for if his sword didn't slice through the shield he would be vulnerable to being pummeled to the ground by the shield. A stabbing attack at the shield would only put him at greater risk of losing his sword. Instead of using forward motion to give his strikes momentum the Samurai would most likely be on defense until he was able to cause the Spartan to lose his spear and shield. Imo the Spartan definitely has the advantage with his shield and spear.

The Spatans go through the agoge which goes on for around 13 years phisically hardening the spartans meaning they will be so much better than the samurais

SPARTAN DUH

Originally posted by Samurai100
The Spatans go through the agoge which goes on for around 13 years phisically hardening the spartans meaning they will be so much better than the samurais

The thing is (as I have said before) that a Spartan's training largely focused on fighting as a unit in a phalanx. A Samurai on the other hand devotes hours to one on one combat, so he'd have the advantage in a one on one fight like this.

Spartan for sure! Ever watch the movie "The 300?"

Originally posted by Deja~vu
Spartan for sure! Ever watch the movie "The 300?"

LOL well Spartans from the movie would win, but historically Samurai would

Originally posted by dadudemon
I'm not sure what you're talking about. Japan's "steel" was the strongest and hardest in the world (at the time). Some sword makers hammered their swords over 20,000 times, making it absurdly strong and durable, even by today's standards for steel.
The reason why they had to develop so many forging techniques was because the steel was shitty. Saying something has better "steel" describes the quality of the steel before it has been forged. Right after the steelmaking process, Japanese steal was quite impure... steel is folded to smooth out the distribution of carbon, which western swords had no need for because they could get it right the first time.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I don't doubt it, at all. Even a claymore, with it's crude cutting edge, would cut through one of those shields.
Now that's just nonsense. Even a wood shield is difficult to cut through from it's shape.

Originally posted by Deja~vu
Spartan for sure! Ever watch the movie "The 300?"

Weren't those guys hot, I mean SO HOT.

I agree with you on some things there... but Samurai armies have completely defeated Korean armies in the past, so you saying that samurais never defeated non-samurai armies is completely wrong. Hell Hideyoshi's Samurai were able to reach a military stalemate with China itself.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Now that's just nonsense. Even a wood shield is difficult to cut through from it's shape.

Despite the expert on the discovery video saying that it could cut through iron?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Despite the expert on the discovery video saying that it could cut through iron?

Dude, that fool has no idea what he's talking, he even got facts wrong about the Spartans, despite being a blatant 300 fanboy.

http://img109.imageshack.us/img109/830/48651447.jpg

lmao a Katana will definitely cut through just anything as long it's properly used. doesn't anyone understand how shields work though? A Samurai isn't going to simply shatter the Spartans shield by landing a direct strike. Swords are designed to pierce but the katanas require a striking tactic. Shields are designed to stave off striking attacks. A Katana is not going to slice through a spartan shield if it's being handled by an expert Soldier. The Spartan is at high risk of impaled though. Although the shield should prove strong enough to defend against striking attacks, A katana will easily pierce though that *****, again, however, that leaves the Samurai open for heavy counter.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Despite the expert on the discovery video saying that it could cut through iron?
Being able to cut through something that's just sitting there, and being able to cut something in heated combat, are two totally different things. Same reason why breaking bricks doesn't mean shit in martial arts.

Katana isn't cutting through a heavy bronze shield, which is curved to deflect blows, come on. This doesn't mean the spartan wins though.

Myth Busters tested varies swords against each other, a genuinely forged katana was able to break a cheaply made one, this wasn't a cut though, cheap sword simply broke due to stress.

Katana also faired well against a claymore, since it bent and absorbed the much heavier hit, speaks well of the katana's superior design.

Why does that make it superior? It's not like it broke the claymore either.

Because the claymore is a very large and very heavy sword. The katana has a very high level of durability, despite it being a thin blade; it achieves this due to it's superior folding/forging/cooling process.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Being able to cut through something that's just sitting there, and being able to cut something in heated combat, are two totally different things. Same reason why breaking bricks doesn't mean shit in martial arts.


Glad you agree. A high quality "samurai" sword cuts through bronze and wood, much easier than it does iron.



Originally posted by Robtard
Katana isn't cutting through a heavy bronze shield, which is curved to deflect blows, come on.

The blade is also curved to create a cut, as well.

Originally posted by dadudemon

The blade is also curved to create a cut, as well.

Still unlikely to cut through a heavy bronze/wood shield, though.

Under the perfect conditions, where the shield is stationary and the katana has a perfectly clean blow coming down on the shield's from an overhand strike, sure, it might cut in a few inches.

Originally posted by Robtard
Because the claymore is a very large and very heavy sword. The katana has a very high level of durability, despite it being a thin blade; it achieves this due to it's superior folding/forging/cooling process.


They both have two very different purposes though. A claymore is used for power ....,knocking people down or disorienting them. A Katana is used for swift strikes.. I don't think anyone is arguing the quality of a Katana. The hilt of a Claymore with break far sooner than a claymore

Originally posted by Robtard
Still unlikely to cut through a heavy bronze/wood shield, though.

Unlikely that the Samurai would try to cut through his shield in a fight, yes. It could be done by a skilled/strong samurai, though. Should be no problem, which was my original point.

Originally posted by Robtard
Under the perfect conditions, where the shield is stationary and the katana has a perfectly clean blow coming down on the shield's from an overhand strike, sure, it might cut in a few inches.

I agree. This was my point.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Glad you agree. A high quality "samurai" sword cuts through bronze and wood, much easier than it does iron.
If you laid the shield on some platform, and the Samurai prepped for the swing, it could possibly be cut through. (what thickness was the iron? What shape was it?)

In the middle of a fight? No, it would never happen.

Originally posted by dadudemon
The blade is also curved to create a cut, as well.
It's curved to create a cut on regular surfaces. Not on surfaces that are designed to resist such cuts. Additionally, part of a shield's defensive power is that if you hit it, your blade is turned to an angle by the curve, and "skates off" harmlessly.

Katana's have been proven to have trouble cutting through even chain mail. Cutting through a shield is complete nonsense.

"Katanas are powerful swords used with strong techniques, but thinking they could simply cleave through a stout Medieval shield is absurd. Even with a katana a shield cannot simply be sliced through. Medieval shields were fairly thick wood covered in leather and usually trimmed in metal. Not only that, they were highly maneuverable, making solid, shearing blows difficult. More likely, a blade would be momentarily stuck in the rim if it struck too forcefully. Unlike what is seen in the movies, or described in heroic literature, chopping into a shield's edge can temporarily cause the sword blade to wedge into the shield for just an instant and thereby be delayed in recovering or renewing an attack (and exposing the attacker's arms to a counter-cut). Shields without metal rims were even favored for this very reason."

http://www.thearma.org/essays/knightvs.htm

Grappling > Any form of weaponry, from swords to lasers

/close thread

That doesn't really help answer the question though; both fighters would be good grapplers.

Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
They both have two very different purposes though. A claymore is used for power ....,knocking people down or disorienting them. A Katana is used for swift strikes.. I don't think anyone is arguing the quality of a Katana. The hilt of a Claymore with break far sooner than a claymore

I think a zweihander (sp?) is what Robtard is looking for. A claymore is a large heavy sword, sure. But the sword you're describing seems like a large zweihander.

Originally posted by King Kandy
"Katanas are powerful swords used with strong techniques, but thinking they could simply cleave through a stout Medieval shield is absurd. Even with a katana a shield cannot simply be sliced through. Medieval shields were fairly thick wood covered in leather and usually trimmed in metal. Not only that, they were highly maneuverable, making solid, shearing blows difficult. More likely, a blade would be momentarily stuck in the rim if it struck too forcefully. Unlike what is seen in the movies, or described in heroic literature, chopping into a shield's edge can temporarily cause the sword blade to wedge into the shield for just an instant and thereby be delayed in recovering or renewing an attack (and exposing the attacker's arms to a counter-cut). Shields without metal rims were even favored for this very reason."

http://www.thearma.org/essays/knightvs.htm

Spartans are not medieval, though. They are bronze age, dude.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Spartans are not medieval, though. They are bronze age, dude. They are actually iron age. But they did use some bronze weaponry

Just remembered, in the Deadliest Warrior episode: Spartan Vs Ninja. The fat caucasian "ninja" tried to cut through Spartan bronze armor with his ninjato (similar in make to a katana); it glanced off, barely scratching it. Was funny, as he was so sure it would "go right through", since he had superior tech and materials.

Take that for what it's worth.

Originally posted by King Kandy
That doesn't really help answer the question though; both fighters would be good grapplers. Not sure about "good", maybe good for that time period. Not sure how evolved jiujitsu was in that time period in Japan, same with pankration in Greece. What holds were understood, and how would they apply it with the armor on. Leaning towards the Spartan, even though I think this thread is stupid.

/close thread

Originally posted by dadudemon
Spartans are not medieval, though. They are bronze age, dude.
That doesn't matter; the point was to help demonstrate how even a wood shield would give Katana's trouble, with minimal metal.

Originally posted by Robtard
Just remembered, in the Deadliest Warrior episode: Spartan Vs Ninja. The fat caucasian "ninja" tried to cut through Spartan bronze armor with his ninjato (similar in make to a katana); it glanced off, barely scratching it. Was funny, as he was so sure it would "go right through", since he had superior tech and materials.

Take that for what it's worth.

As far as I know a katana is usually vastly superior in make than a ninjato though.

Originally posted by Bardock42
As far as I know a katana is usually vastly superior in make than a ninjato though.

I know, that's why I said "take that for what it's worth."

In the Viking Vs Samurai episide, the katana only nicked the Viking's iron chain-mail, despite numerous attempts to cut through. I don't think it could do more to a heavy bronze shield during battle conditions.

Originally posted by King Kandy
That doesn't matter; the point was to help demonstrate how even a wood shield would give Katana's trouble, with minimal metal.

I've been doing some research on their shields and I think you're right. In fact, the Bronze metal would be easier to cut than the wooden protion. The Wooden protio nwas quite thick. The shields weighed, sometimes, over 30 lbs. They were a slab of wood, basically. i was thinking they were much thinner with a coat of bronze. Not the case.



However, the hoplite's armor is made of bronze. Should be no problem to stab through. In same instances, should be no problem to even slice through.

All the same, i'd try to attack non-covered spots if I was the Samurai. Katanas can barely cut mail, so i'm not hopeful towards it's prospects of cutting metal plate in battle, even if it is just bronze.

I'd give this to the samurai all the same, though. Their armor and weaponry is just much more advanced, being made of steel. Samurai vs. knight would be a much more even topic for discussion imo.

I still can't believe they paired a Spartan against a Ninja. What an obscure match-up. Fully trained warrior versus an assassin. It's like comparing apples to oranges; sure they're both fruit, but c'mon!


Spartan versus a Samurai, or a Knight, would have been better. Put the Ninja up against the Viking or something.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
I still can't believe they paired a Spartan against a Ninja. What an obscure match-up. Fully trained warrior versus an assassin. It's like comparing apples to oranges; sure they're both fruit, but c'mon!


Spartan versus a Samurai, or a Knight, would have been better. Put the Ninja up against the Viking or something.
Yeah, because that would have skirted the warrior vs. assassin issue entirely.

I don't give a f*ck about who the ninja fights.

Originally posted by Robtard
Weren't those guys hot, I mean SO HOT. Yep!!

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
I don't give a f*ck about who the ninja fights.

Should have been the pirate.

Samurai would win it as far as I'm concerned... Better weaponary, more modern tactics. I mean, in the 16th century they used gunpowder... Even without that they had their Yumi, which was a decent powered compound bow.

And the people who say that the spartans were more skilled... How is this even possible to know? A Samurai spent his life training, so how can you say he is less skilled?