samurai vs spartan

Originally posted by King Kandy
Why would Samurai from the sengoku period know anything about Spartans? I seriously doubt, with most outside influence then being from missionaries and british/dutch traders, and other than that fairly isolated, they would have even heard of the Spartans. Hell before "300" came out most westerners couldn't have told you anything about spartan tactics.

Assuming they know nothing of each other, having spent the majority of their lives training for battle, it wouldn't be hard for the Samurai to deduce the fighting technic a shield and spear fighter would try to emply and vice-versa. So it's a stupid argumient.

Samurai would still likely win.

Originally posted by Robtard
Assuming they know nothing of each other, having spent the majority of their lives training for battle, it wouldn't be hard for the Samurai to deduce the fighting technic a shield and spear fighter would try to emply and vice-versa. So it's a stupid argumient.

Samurai would still likely win.

I understand that this is assuming a lot.... But the entire question... As with all these historical match-ups is stupid. As undoubtably the later warriors would win... Because of a wonderful thing called development.

Originally posted by §P0oONY
Even if they're not fully aware of tactics it would still not be a shock, they would sill have heard of the ancient greeks. I love it how people instantly believe that people from centuries past are unedutaced... especially about the history that preceded them.

I don't think people are uneducated about the history that preceded THEM, but when it comes to the ancient history of stuff from a totally different cultural heritage half across the world, yeah I am a little bit skeptical about the amount of information available to them. Japanese and Chinese culture and history was taking off long before the Spartans, and in no way does ancient greek play an important role in their cultural heritage (only loosely by laying groundwork that allowed european powers to interact with Japan centuries later).

They'd know it for the same reason we do.... Curiousity.
It might very well be through word of mouth. But there is no way in hell you can catagorically say they haven't. I'm just saying they might have... which is 100% more likely than that of a Spartan having heard about a Samurai.

The idea that the "might have", strikes me at the very least as highly unlikely, if not historically impossible. Curiosity is a lot easier to have about something when you've already curious. I don't just say "hey, I wonder if there were any impressive warrior tribes in ancient Nigeria I could find out about" unless I heard something prior that would make me think there were. And that's in the internet era. When you're a samurai general, would you seek out (wholly useless, mind you) information about a group from a place you've never been to and most likely never heard of, maybe track down the one or two portugeuse missionaries in the whole country that would know, and ask these questions that they have no interest in talking about?

Mate, this whole entire debate is "might haves".

You're really fading hear, aren't you? First it was that they definitely knew about the style:

Originally posted by §P0oONY
The Samurai would be aware of the Spartan's fighting style...

Then it was they would have heard about greeks and probably the spartans:

Originally posted by §P0oONY
Even if they're not fully aware of tactics it would still not be a shock, they would sill have heard of the ancient greeks.

Then it was that they might have known about greeks/spartans:

Originally posted by §P0oONY
But there is no way in hell you can catagorically say they haven't. I'm just saying they might have...

And now you're saying that there's no way to know either way. Wow. I guess even you knew there was no evidence for what you were saying.

Owned.

I'm not the one that wanted to have a debate about this. It's called reaching a comprimise to shut you up.

Excuses.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Excuses.

Originally posted by §P0oONY
No, it doesn't change the result either way, but the intimidation factor is a major thing. As brave and heroic as the spartans are in the feature film 300... Being faced with an oponent that looks like a Samurai would be an intimidating thing... it wouldn't appear human (in full armour). However if the Samurai was even the least bit aware of the Spartans existence, or even if he wasn't to be honest... The Spartan wouldn't seem intimidating at all, as his equipment would just look inferior.

I understand that this is assuming a lot.... But the entire question... As with all these historical match-ups is stupid. As undoubtably the later warriors would win... Because of a wonderful thing called development.

I don't think the ancient greeks were so stupid they couldn't recognize a diminutive slanty eyed man in foreign armour, for being just that.

Being covered from ankles to head in thick bronze, plus a fairly large shield for further protection makes a fairly formidable and tank-like visual. Those heavy spears were also one hit, one kill, as the katana.

Thinking about it, the Spartan's piercing spear would go through the Samurai armour easier, than the Samurai's katana could slash through Spartan armour. All that force centered on one smaller sharp point, you know.

I still think the Samurai wins, or wins more times than naught.

No sword is going to excel at cutting any sort of metal armor. The difference between where the striking area is on the weapon and the centre of gravity means the amount of shear force that can be applied is limited. If you laid a katana edge-down and struck the back with a heavy mallet directly over the cutting area you could increase the shear forces as per the Buck knife demos, but this scenario is unlikely in combat, to say the least. Weapons like halberds, axes, etc. were much better at dealing with armor. Persons who watched Spike TVs "Deadliest Warrior" know the katana is unable to slice through chainmail armor.
You are not going to get a steel blade sharper than a surgeon's scalpel. My previous point about that samurais never face a different army is based that they never fought against a similar set of weapons as the Spartans one. Samurais trained sword versus sword, unlike Spartans that they used a shield (bronze) and a sword. Spartans fought versus Swordsmen armies and they defeated them. I am sure that the samurais will get a lot of trouble trying to go through a huge metal shield and a spear, xyphos, or falcata striking them from the other side. To the person that is saying that the katana will cut through the shield, let go and make a bet, I will invite you to my lab here at Ithaca, NY and if the katana cut through the bronze shield I pay you $1000 USD (otherwise you pay me). At the most maybe a little notch will show up with a lot of luck. Please, stop the anime thing!!!

If this were Inuyasha, he'd slice through diamond.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
If this were Inuyasha, he'd slice through diamond.

Fo sho. As would Afro Samurai.

Originally posted by hist99
No sword is going to excel at cutting any sort of metal armor. The difference between where the striking area is on the weapon and the centre of gravity means the amount of shear force that can be applied is limited. If you laid a katana edge-down and struck the back with a heavy mallet directly over the cutting area you could increase the shear forces as per the Buck knife demos, but this scenario is unlikely in combat, to say the least. Weapons like halberds, axes, etc. were much better at dealing with armor. Persons who watched Spike TVs "Deadliest Warrior" know the katana is unable to slice through chainmail armor.
You are not going to get a steel blade sharper than a surgeon's scalpel. My previous point about that samurais never face a different army is based that they never fought against a similar set of weapons as the Spartans one. Samurais trained sword versus sword, unlike Spartans that they used a shield (bronze) and a sword. Spartans fought versus Swordsmen armies and they defeated them. I am sure that the samurais will get a lot of trouble trying to go through a huge metal shield and a spear, xyphos, or falcata striking them from the other side. To the person that is saying that the katana will cut through the shield, let go and make a bet, I will invite you to my lab here at Ithaca, NY and if the katana cut through the bronze shield I pay you $1000 USD (otherwise you pay me). At the most maybe a little notch will show up with a lot of luck. Please, stop the anime thing!!!

I dont know if you really know how was the spartan armor, because they did had one. Check in youtube this, "Ancient warriors - Spartans". There you will be able to see their amor and some good history. They also have a good documentary about samurais too.

Originally posted by Robtard
Assuming they know nothing of each other, having spent the majority of their lives training for battle, it wouldn't be hard for the Samurai to deduce the fighting technic a shield and spear fighter would try to emply and vice-versa. So it's a stupid argumient.

Samurai would still likely win.

so personally i think that a spartan would only because they not only have a intence amount of pain tolerance but they here born to kill. if they were not able to do this then they would be bannished from sparta.

i went to that day of school. and history is my best subject!

Originally posted by mikeydude
first off the spartans used more than spears. they also had scimitars and short swords.

so personally i think that a spartan would only because they not only have a intence amount of pain tolerance but they here born to kill. if they were not able to do this then they would be bannished from sparta.

i went to that day of school. and history is my best subject!

I didn't state that they didn't.

Yeah, they were warriors, as the Samurai.

Na, I think you watched 300 and have a fancied view of the Spartans.