samurai vs spartan

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:

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.

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...