NationStates Jolt Archive

1. A Roman legion of 5000

1. 5000 samuri

1. A Roman legion of 5000

1. 5000 samuri
The Romans would win but the cost would be great.

The romans don't stand the slightest chance against the samurai! :D

The Romans

The Samuri, simply because it is in equal numbers

Romans would waste them samuris in no time.

Time period? True Roman Legions, from the time of Julius, would have probably won. Late Empire Romans lacka disaprine and would be torn apart by the samuri.

romans have bigass metal shields to defend against the samurai...

but i'd still go for the samurai hands down. it'd be over before it started once the samurai breached the roman formation

I think 5000 Romans would be five legions.

But since each roman soldier is just a soldier, and the Samurai are all much more highly trained warriors, plus the fact that the Samurai would probably be mounted with their bows and spears before any of them would get down. This would give the samurai a very strong tactical advantage.

Not to mention the fact that a single samurai could unsheath his blade and kill everyone within four feetn of him and sheath it again before anybody knew what happened.

I still like romans more than samurai, but they would lose.

My head says romans, my heart says samuri

I'm with Samuri

Not to mention the fact that a single samurai could unsheath his blade and kill everyone within four feetn of him and sheath it again before anybody knew what happened.


You were almost convincing up to there.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've always held the impression that Samurais are accomplished individual swordsmen, with big egos. I don't know if they can function effectively in a large group.

The Roman legion however are a fighting unit, trained to fight and support one another. And not forgetting that a legion also comprises of auxiliaries such as archers and spearmen.

Gotta give it to the Romans.

the romans

Speaking historically, the samurai were active for much longer than the Roman legions, and had access to better technology. Therefore, samurai win.

Ehhh.....Samurai.

The Romans may have had some clever tactics on their side, but...In melee combat, they would be chopped to bits.

Especially since Samurai are elite troops similar to knights, spending their lives focused on their craft, where your average legionnaire is a mere footsoldier.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've always held the impression that Samurais are accomplished individual swordsmen, with big egos. I don't know if they can function effectively in a large group.

The Roman legion however are a fighting unit, trained to fight and support one another. And not forgetting that a legion also comprises of auxiliaries such as archers and spearmen.

Gotta give it to the Romans.

The Samurai were trained originaly as expert horse archers and lancers. They only fought on foot after the first mongol invasion, where their enemies fought together, and three on one is not good ods for a guy on a stationary horse.

Also, the four feet thing was a bit a 'umor after all of the argument.

Samurai win.

Ehhh.....Samurai.

The Romans may have had some clever tactics on their side, but...In melee combat, they would be chopped to bits.

Especially since Samurai are elite troops similar to knights, spending their lives focused on their craft, where your average legionnaire is a mere footsoldier.

EXACTLY! HE UNDERSTANDS!

*gives medal*

EXACTLY! HE UNDERSTANDS!

*gives medal*

*bows and receives it*

The Romans.

The Romans.

Why? The Samurai ARE better individual warriors than almost everybody. Their swords are the best in the world, they are EXTREAMLY mobile, with their horses. They also have a longer range then the roman javalins and better accuracy than the archer auxilaries in the roman army. Better in every way, save maybe for teamwork. But they were not as arrogant in that respect as the european knights.

The Samurai were trained originaly as expert horse archers and lancers. They only fought on foot after the first mongol invasion, where their enemies fought together, and three on one is not good ods for a guy on a stationary horse.

Also, the four feet thing was a bit a 'umor after all of the argument.

Samurai win.

I don't know much about Japanese history but did the samurais ever fought in a large scale engagement? All I know about samurais comes from watching The Seven Samurai.:D

The Samurai were brought into being becuase the warring clans needed loyal and powerful warriors. They fought in most major engagements in feudal japan, drove back two mongol invasions. They usualy fought in many, many large scale engagements as elite warriors.

A question barely worthy of a response, since a legion, whilst generally being at the least 6000 in combatent strength, comprises legionnary and auxillary infantry, artillery, missile units and skirmishers. A consumate combatent unit equipped impeccably, and led by the arguably the greatest officer corps in military history. By comparison, the Samurai were, admittedly exquisitely adept and equipped, individual warriors whose capacity to overcome a block of infantry would be negligable, notably against the barrage of pilum thrown by legionnaries.

Why? The Samurai ARE better individual warriors than almost everybody. Their swords are the best in the world, they are EXTREAMLY mobile, with their horses. They also have a longer range then the roman javalins and better accuracy than the archer auxilaries in the roman army. Better in every way, save maybe for teamwork. But they were not as arrogant in that respect as the european knights.

Teamwork can far outweigh quality of weapons. The weapon has to make contact with the enemy in order to be effective. The Roman short sword is argueably one of the best weapons of its time. In the hands of a disciplined, experienced army, I think the Romans would soundly defeat samurai, who live more in legend. The Roman legions brought order and controlled a vast empire in the known world. Roman legions decimated undisciplined armies much larger than themselves on a regular basis through tactics and coordination. Not flamboyant individuals. The samurai controlled one tiny island nation.

Samurai are a more elite soldier from what I remember, the Romans were only good in standard battle where opposing armies stayed in formation. The samurai would chew them up.

No poll?

The Samurai would not have charged foreward. They were first and foremost simple cavalry archers. They used massive longbows on horseback. They had extream range and accuracy. The Samurai were far more diciplined and would have understood this. They had more mobility than any of the romans, and when, if they did, the roman heavy cavalry attacked, the samurai could respond with the spears they also carried.

The romans were one of the most effective combat forces in the history of mankind, but this is one thing they could not do. Just about any other civilization, yup, Feudal Japan, no.

A question barely worthy of a response, since a legion, whilst generally being at the least 6000 in combatent strength, comprises legionnary and auxillary infantry, artillery, missile units and skirmishers. A consumate combatent unit equipped impeccably, and led by the arguably the greatest officer corps in military history. By comparison, the Samurai were, admittedly exquisitely adept and equipped, individual warriors whose capacity to overcome a block of infantry would be negligable, notably against the barrage of pilum thrown by legionnaries.

This was what I thought as well. A comparison would be something like a WW2-era combined arms division against an entire modern-day division comprised solely of infantry.

The Samurai would not have charged foreward. They were first and foremost simple cavalry archers. They used massive longbows on horseback. They had extream range and accuracy. The Samurai were far more diciplined and would have understood this. They had more mobility than any of the romans, and when, if they did, the roman heavy cavalry attacked, the samurai could respond with the spears they also carried.

The romans were one of the most effective combat forces in the history of mankind, but this is one thing they could not do. Just about any other civilization, yup, Feudal Japan, no.

But apparently their longbows were ineffective against the Mongols. And didn't they switch from horses and bows to swords and spears after seeing how ineffective their ranged and cavalry were against the Mongols?

Teamwork can far outweigh quality of weapons. The weapon has to make contact with the enemy in order to be effective. The Roman short sword is argueably one of the best weapons of its time. In the hands of a disciplined, experienced army, I think the Romans would soundly defeat samurai, who live more in legend. The Roman legions brought order and controlled a vast empire in the known world. Roman legions decimated undisciplined armies much larger than themselves on a regular basis through tactics and coordination. Not flamboyant individuals. The samurai controlled one tiny island nation.


First - Japan was not 'tiny'. Although it was smaller than the roman empire, it was harder to control. You were not fighting undiciplined mobs, you were fighting men who have trained from birth, like you, to kill other people.

Second - The Samurai were not the best at unit fighting, but they were not an undiciplined mob. They would understand tactics and such, if their lord did. They took orders from him, and he was not an idiot. Thats why he was lord.

Third - The roman short sword is the second best melee weapon in history, guess who's was better?

Samurai are a more elite soldier from what I remember, the Romans were only good in standard battle where opposing armies stayed in formation. The samurai would chew them up.

No poll?


germanic tribes were barely a standard battle.

But apparently their longbows were ineffective against the Mongols. And didn't they switch from horses and bows to swords and spears after seeing how ineffective their ranged and cavalry were against the Mongols?

They did. But this does not kill their training. Each man was still an amazing archer, horseman, and swordsman. Better at these things than the romans were, for sure.

germanic tribes were barely a standard battle.

Isn't it supposively the Romans who came up with many of the basic military maneuvers that were used in more modern times and even today?

germanic tribes were barely a standard battle.

Germanic tribes were hardly samurai.

They were hungry peasants with sticks, and yet, they seem to have brought legions to their knees and burned rome to the ground.

Hungry peasents with sticks, no dicipline, none of the great weapons or armour that the Samurai had.

First - Japan was not 'tiny'. Although it was smaller than the roman empire, it was harder to control. You were not fighting undiciplined mobs, you were fighting men who have trained from birth, like you, to kill other people.

Second - The Samurai were not the best at unit fighting, but they were not an undiciplined mob. They would understand tactics and such, if their lord did. They took orders from him, and he was not an idiot. Thats why he was lord.

Third - The roman short sword is the second best melee weapon in history, guess who's was better?

Japan was and is a tiny nation -then and now-in all regards, unless you had to paint it.

I never said the samurai were an undisciplined mob.

Again-tactics and experience get the weapon to the enemy.

My money would be on the Romans.

Third - The roman short sword is the second best melee weapon in history, guess who's was better?

Teutonic Zweihander? Those things shattered pikes.

I think 5000 Romans would be five legions.
<snip>

1 Legion = 6000 men usually accompanied by an equal number of auxillaries

Germanic tribes were hardly samurai.

No- but someone stated that the Romans were most effective against standard battle. germanic tribes were anything but standard.

Isn't it supposively the Romans who came up with many of the basic military maneuvers that were used in more modern times and even today?

Yes.
Roman knowledge,culture and design still last worldwide today.

The Samurai would not have charged foreward. They were first and foremost simple cavalry archers. They used massive longbows on horseback. They had extream range and accuracy. The Samurai were far more diciplined and would have understood this. They had more mobility than any of the romans, and when, if they did, the roman heavy cavalry attacked, the samurai could respond with the spears they also carried.

The romans were one of the most effective combat forces in the history of mankind, but this is one thing they could not do. Just about any other civilization, yup, Feudal Japan, no.

Whyever not? Oddly, the Roman infantry were equipped with shileds, more akin to pavises than to Bucklers, whilst no amount of accurate bow fire (not "long bow" fire, since the long bow is a colloqialism for the English war bow of the medieval ages), can surpass volley fire and artillery fire. Furthermore, a legion wielded mercenary cavalry, and would in all likelihood accordingly have compelled the Samurai to prosecute an open engagement due to force of numbers.

No- but someone stated that the Romans were most effective against standard battle. germanic tribes were anything but standard.

Germanic tribes were the ancient equivalent of the modern Iraqi insurgency. Incidentally, the Romans failed to quash the tribes, and eventually fell to them.

Numbers are equal, remember, this is 5,000 vs. 5,000.

They did. But this does not kill their training. Each man was still an amazing archer, horseman, and swordsman. Better at these things than the romans were, for sure.

Yes, each man. I completely agree with you that one on one, the samurai would own the legionary. But 5000 samurais on foot and horseback against a legion comprising of artillery, archers, heavy infantry, skirmishers and spearmen, I'm not so sure.

Teutonic Zweihander? Those things shattered pikes.

And subsequently left their wielders exhausted to the extent that they were slaughtered.

Whilst the Katana is effective, and irrefutably so, it is fallible, and would require the user to abandon a shiled, and accordingly be, as it were, a metaphorical pin cushion.

And subsequently left their wielders exhausted to the extent that they were slaughtered.

Whilst the Katana is effective, and irrefutably so, it is fallible, and would require the user to abandon a shiled, and accordingly be, as it were, a metaphorical pin cushion.

I still say that the halberd was the best melee weapon.

Numbers are equal, remember, this is 5,000 vs. 5,000.

In which case the opening post is oxymoronic, since the Roman legion was at the least 6000 in numerical strength, not considering the equites and auxillary units, or artillery support.

Isn't that like an axe, a spear and a hook combined? It's like a 3-in-1 weapon.

I still say that the halberd was the best melee weapon.

I would agree, or possibly the ubiquititious spear.

And subsequently left their wielders exhausted to the extent that they were slaughtered.

Whilst the Katana is effective, and irrefutably so, it is fallible, and would require the user to abandon a shiled, and accordingly be, as it were, a metaphorical pin cushion.

I have to go with that, archery fire would hurt them alot, but it would hurt your auxilery archers too.

http://img219.imageshack.us/img219/1439/samurai33ie.gif (http://imageshack.us)

Samurai "longbow"

In which case the opening post is oxymoronic, since the Roman legion was at the least 6000 in numerical strength, not considering the equites and auxillary units, or artillery support.

I agree completely

I have to go with that, archery fire would hurt them alot, but it would hurt your auxilery archers too.

http://img219.imageshack.us/img219/1439/samurai33ie.gif (http://imageshack.us)

Samurai "longbow"

It is not a long bow moron, its a composite bow. A "Long bow", is, as I have aforementioned, a modern colloqialism for the English (Welsh actually) war bow.

I would agree, or possibly the ubiquititious spear.

In terms of quality, not purpose.

In terms of purpose, the pike dominated medival battlefeilds for hundreds of years. Supported by light infantry to protect the formatins flanks, they could "pwn" anything. Again, exept maybe missile troops.

It is not a long bow moron, its a composite bow. A "Long bow", is, as I have aforementioned, a modern colloqialism for the English (Welsh actually) war bow.

That's why it's in these things "". I know what a composite bow and a long bow are. But it is in fact a very long bow. :)

And if you must flame me to make your argument you must be running out of anything good.

That's why it's in these things "". I know what a composite bow and a long bow are. But it is in fact a very long bow. :)

And if you must flame me to make your argument you must be running out of anything good.

Thats hardly flame, its more charcoal really:p

Thats hardly flame, its more charcoal really:p

Thats how you start a good barbeque.

Mmmmmm.....hamburgers..

If the Roman legions were so good, how come they never managed to decisively defeat the Persians?

Damn, I came to this thread late...

If the samauri are all horsed and use bows for just about the whole battle, they'd win.

If they dismount and fight as infantry with only some cavalry, the romans win.

Either way, it'd be like a fight between Muhammad Ali and Rocky Marciano in their respective primes - Ali'd win, but it'd be hellish hard on him.

Germanic tribes were hardly samurai.

They were hungry peasants with sticks, and yet, they seem to have brought legions to their knees and burned rome to the ground.

Hungry peasents with sticks, no dicipline, none of the great weapons or armour that the Samurai had.

You're so ignorant it isn't even funny any more.

No, wait, yes it is.

If the Roman legions were so good, how come they never managed to decisively defeat the Persians?

Hmm, perhpas because Alexander the Great contrived to do so some 2 centuries prior to the imperialistic period of the early emperors.

Incidentally, if you are referring to the Parthians, Hadrian contrived to assume sovereignty over half of all Parthian domains, yet abandoned it to better fortify the Euphrates, and refused to cede to his generals and utterly crush Parthia.

The Goths sacked Rome. They did so becuase they were angry because they were puched out of their land by the huns and relocated by the romans. They had no food, they were hungry.

To make the long story short they got mad and rioted all the way to rome, then sacked it.

Then the Huns came.

The Goths sacked Rome. They did so becuase they were angry because they were puched out of their land by the huns and relocated by the romans. They had no food, they were hungry.

To make the long story short they got mad and rioted all the way to rome, then sacked it.

Then the Huns came.

You know that was when Western Rome was at the end of its strength, militarily, culturally, and socially - I thought the idea was to compare the samauri in their hayday with the romans in theirs?

Hmm, perhpas because Alexander the Great contrived to do so some 2 centuries prior to the imperialistic period of the early emperors.

Incidentally, if you are referring to the Parthians, Hadrian contrived to assume sovereignty over half of all Parthian domains, yet abandoned it to better fortify the Euphrates, and refused to cede to his generals and utterly crush Parthia.

Well, Alexander was Macedonian, not Roman. If Romans would be able to defeat Alexander is an entirely different question.

Also, while Hadrian might have defeated Parthia, the Mesopotamian provinces fell back to the Persians a few decades later.

And what about Valerian (?), the Roman emperor that was captured by the Persians? Or Crassus, Cesar's triumvir colleaugue, that failed to defeat the Persians and died?

One of the reasons the Roman Empire was failing was becuase of the constant attacks by these hungry raiders.

<snip>
Or Crassus, Cesar's triumvir colleaugue, that failed to defeat the Persians and died?

Crassus was hardly a general. He was basically the triumvirates financial backer. He went to Parthia to try and win a great victory to equal his fellow triumvirs. We know how that turned out.

One of the reasons the Roman Empire was failing was becuase of the constant attacks by these hungry raiders.

The bottom had fallen out of the Roman's barrel long before they got to be a problem, as I think you know :)

But anyway, this is getting offtopic - Romans due to adaptibility, scientific study of warfare, and professionalism rather than the individually superior, warrior culture of the samauri, I think, though if they fought as mounted bowmen, I _do_ fancy their chances against even an early imperial legion. Although... Arrian left a fascinating document saying how he would defeat an army based on missile and heavy cavalry in the form of the Alans... Nah... most likely the samauri, still, in that case!

Well, Alexander was Macedonian, not Roman. If Romans would be able to defeat Alexander is an entirely different question.

Also, while Hadrian might have defeated Parthia, the Mesopotamian provinces fell back to the Persians a few decades later.

And what about Valerian (?), the Roman emperor that was captured by the Persians? Or Crassus, Cesar's triumvir colleaugue, that failed to defeat the Persians and died?

My word, I was more alludng to the fact that in Rome's pre-eminence, Persia constituted no threat due to Alexander, and thankyou for the elementary history lecture, I am, oddly, aware of where Alexander was born, having visited it.

Moreover, the Mesopotamian provinces were relinquished by Rome at Hadrian's behest, since he was unsure as to where an invasion od Parthia as a whole would take he legions, hence why Persia (technically Parthia), conquered the cleint kings decades later.

As for Valeria and Crassus, one could always allude to Caesar, Octavian et al as counter evidence.

My word, I was more alludng to the fact that in Rome's pre-eminence, Persia constituted no threat due to Alexander, and thankyou for the elementary history lecture, I am, oddly, aware of where Alexander was born, having visited it.

Moreover, the Mesopotamian provinces were relinquished by Rome at Hadrian's behest, since he was unsure as to where an invasion od Parthia as a whole would take he legions, hence why Persia (technically Parthia), conquered the cleint kings decades later.

As for Valeria and Crassus, one could always allude to Caesar, Octavian et al as counter evidence.

Actually, Parthia was viewed by Romans as the biggest threat to their empire (at least to the Eastern part of it). Also, I pointed out that the Romans never decisively beat Parthia - they might have won battles, but they didn't win the war.

they might have won battles, but they didn't win the war.

But for relevance to this thread, a battle os all we're talking about, not a _war_ between samauri and romans, a battle, 5000 a side; like a really big one-off football match...

Actually, Parthia was viewed by Romans as the biggest threat to their empire (at least to the Eastern part of it). Also, I pointed out that the Romans never decisively beat Parthia - they might have won battles, but they didn't win the war.

Neither did the Parthians.

Elgesh']But for relevance to this thread, a battle os all we're talking about, not a _war_ between samauri and romans, a battle, 5000 a side; like a really big one-off football match...

Given the 1500 years separating both, my bet would be on the samurai.

Given the 1500 years separating both, my bet would be on the samurai.

If it was purely a question of technological advances, yes; but I wonder if, given the nature of warfare for both of these cultures at their apogees, if there isn't more to it than that.

Neither did the Parthians.

Exactly. Which basically means that a Roman army would be approximately as good as a Parthian army.

Now recast this whole poll as: "Who would win? 5000 Parthians or 5000 samurai"? I bet that in this case everyone would answer: the Samurai.

Western people are just biased in favour of the Romans, since in their history books almost no space is devoted to non-Western cultures.

Elgesh']If it was purely a question of technological advances, yes; but I wonder if, given the nature of warfare for both of these cultures at their apogees, if there isn't more to it than that.

Why shouldn't the samurai be able to master tactics as well as the Romans, or even better? Asia has a long tradition of tactical thought; after all on of the earliest known books on the subject is Sun Tzu's "The Art of War".

Why shouldn't the samurai be able to master tactics as well as the Romans, or even better? Asia has a long tradition of tactical thought; after all on of the earliest known books on the subject is Sun Tzu's "The Art of War".

Wasn't the art of war written by a series of chinese military thinkers? (most promenantly Sun Tzu; or alternatively, Homeresque, he was the greatest compiler and classifier of the theories :))

There's absolutely no reason for samauri not to 'master tactics' - I'm not sure either way to what extent they did. But I think you've also got to consider tactics, grand tactics, military education and ethos, training as an army as well as individuals, what flexibility your army affords you, experience of what-it's-like-to-fight-foes-with-vastly-different-different-military-traditions-to-yours...

Exactly. Which basically means that a Roman army would be approximately as good as a Parthian army.

Now recast this whole poll as: "Who would win? 5000 Parthians or 5000 samurai"? I bet that in this case everyone would answer: the Samurai.

Western people are just biased in favour of the Romans, since in their history books almost no space is devoted to non-Western cultures.

And yet, for some reason, the Parthians didn't quite manage to conquer the known world. Odd that - them being just as good as the Romans and everything.

There's a reason people tend to favour the Romans - because they kicked arse.

As to the matter at hand, I'm still with the Romans - even if the Samurai were to fight on horseback, the Romans had ways of dealing with mounted enemies - they pretty much had to, since they fought so many of them. Missile fire wasn't so much of a problem either, due to the massive shields they had; I'm sure everyone here is familiar with the 'testudo' or tortoise formation - problem pretty much solved :)

And if the Samurai were to fight on foot, they'd get pwned. Think about it - your average katana is several feet long yes? So that would mean that every Samurai would have to stand twice that length away from his next-door-neighbour to avoid slicing his comrades open - 'friendly stab' you might call it :D - whereas the Romans, with the gladius, a short stabbing sword, could stand shoulder to shoulder and fight as one unit. Therefore each individual Samurai would be outnumbered several to one - not good odds.

Also, the katana is a far more short term weapon than many people realise. The edge would dull signficantly after only a few (well, I say a few - probably several) kills, whereas the gladius is still going to be good at the end of the battle.

I can believe it's been five pages and no one has said Chuck Norris yet.

I can believe it's been five pages and no one has said Chuck Norris yet.

Everyone knows that Romans are immune to roundhouse kicks. That's why Chuck Norris pillaged the germanic tribes lands so they had to move into roman space. And we all know how that turned out don't we.

And yet, for some reason, the Parthians didn't quite manage to conquer the known world. Odd that - them being just as good as the Romans and everything.

There's a reason people tend to favour the Romans - because they kicked arse.

As to the matter at hand, I'm still with the Romans - even if the Samurai were to fight on horseback, the Romans had ways of dealing with mounted enemies - they pretty much had to, since they fought so many of them. Missile fire wasn't so much of a problem either, due to the massive shields they had; I'm sure everyone here is familiar with the 'testudo' or tortoise formation - problem pretty much solved :)

And if the Samurai were to fight on foot, they'd get pwned. Think about it - your average katana is several feet long yes? So that would mean that every Samurai would have to stand twice that length away from his next-door-neighbour to avoid slicing his comrades open - 'friendly stab' you might call it :D - whereas the Romans, with the gladius, a short stabbing sword, could stand shoulder to shoulder and fight as one unit. Therefore each individual Samurai would be outnumbered several to one - not good odds.

Also, the katana is a far more short term weapon than many people realise. The edge would dull signficantly after only a few (well, I say a few - probably several) kills, whereas the gladius is still going to be good at the end of the battle.

Sure, the Romans build a big empire. I'm not denying that. So did Alexander, the Chinese, the Mongols (the biggest Empire on earth), the Arabs, ... The Parthians didn't conquer the world - true - but neither were they conquered by the Romans, which is a feat in itself.

I believe you are totally underestimating the samurai - a caste that dedicated their whole life to combat, after all! Also, they didn't only have the katana, but also smaller swords. I'm not an expert on Asian warfare, but I'm sure that they were also able to fight close to each other without killing each other.

Finally, the Japanese were masters of sword-making. Your average gladius is just a better kitchen knife; a Japanese sword however is probably only comparable to the famous Damascene swords of the Arabs.

Elgesh']Wasn't the art of war written by a series of chinese military thinkers? (most promenantly Sun Tzu; or alternatively, Homeresque, he was the greatest compiler and classifier of the theories :))

There's absolutely no reason for samauri not to 'master tactics' - I'm not sure either way to what extent they did. But I think you've also got to consider tactics, grand tactics, military education and ethos, training as an army as well as individuals, what flexibility your army affords you, experience of what-it's-like-to-fight-foes-with-vastly-different-different-military-traditions-to-yours...

Ethos? What about bushido, the ethos of the samurai? I wonder if you can find anything comparable to that in the Classic western world.

I believe you are totally underestimating the samurai - a caste that dedicated their whole life to combat, after all! Also, they didn't only have the katana, but also smaller swords. I'm not an expert on Asian warfare, but I'm sure that they were also able to fight close to each other without killing each other.

Finally, the Japanese were masters of sword-making. Your average gladius is just a better kitchen knife; a Japanese sword however is probably only comparable to the famous Damascene swords of the Arabs.

Don't forget that once you were in the Roman army you were in for twenty five years or more - they were somewhat dedicated to war as well.

And the gladius was much more than a kitchen knife - it was pretty much the pinnacle of sword making for that situation - it had been honed to perfection for the Roman style of warfare.

Ethos? What about bushido, the ethos of the samurai? I wonder if you can find anything comparable to that in the Classic western world.

The very concept of decimation and all the group cohesion and solidarity it implies, appallingly rigid discipline (soldier breaks ranks, kills enemy, runs back to lines in triumph; is killed for breaking ranks...), remarkable levels of military training ('drills are bloodless battles, and their battles bloody drills' - Josephus), worship of the _spirit_ of their army (Eagles)...

I'm not for a second saying one culture is _better_ than another!

I'm saying that in the context of the question, the comparison we're asked to make, the romans would win a battle with samauri. It's not a question of cultural 'superiority' at all.

It's somewhat tragic that I know enough about this stuff to have an opinion, though... being interested in military history is so _sad_...:p

well i think if someone could actually find 5000 sameri, they would win.

Romans kicked butt though

Romans have better organization
Samurai have superior combat skills and better weapons

I am going to go with samurai - but it won't be a total victory, some Romans will retreat and live.

Don't forget, the samurai beat the Mongols, and the Mongols had unparalleled organization and discipline.

Romans, for several reasons:
1. Armour, the main Samurai weapons are slashing/cutting swords, and if we are talking about a 'standard' group of Romans, then they are either wearing the 'classic' segented armour or chain mail, both of which would defeat a katana fairly easily. The Japanese mostly wore wood with a bit of metal here and there, if I recall.
2. Combined arms, the Romans used everything from spears to siege artillery to shortswords to archers, the Samurai used swords and bows. They might be able to do fancy swordwork, but that wont stop the eighty pound rock that just landed on your head.
3. Teamwork, the Samurai (as has been mentioned) were like knights, invididual warriors out for their own pay/honour. The Romans worked as a TEAM, and with Roman quality equipment, they would shred the Samurai provided they acted as a unit. Its how the Romans beat the barbarian tribes, if a single barbarian fought a single Roman, the odds favoured the Barbarian, he had longer reach, better height, was stronger, and fiercer. Whereas in a unit, the Romans could act together, form a shield wall, and watch as the barbarians ran into the wall and got stabbed in the stomach.
4. Weapons, that big fancy katana might be nice, but when a four foot tall Roman is within a foot of you, it doesnt do much good, again, its the slashing weapon thing, a katana needs an 'acceleration lane' to be able to do much damage, especially against an armoured opponent, whereas a shortsword can stab you in the gut from four inches away when used correctly. That and a katana dulls after use, whereas a gladius, being a stabbing weapon, holds its point for a fairly good amount of time.

Essentially,
While an individual Samurai would fairly easily dispatch a single Roman, 5,000 Romans against 5,000 Samurai would result in an easy Roman victory.

And for those who seem to think that the Gauls, Celts and Germanic tribes were 'easy to beat' should maybe do a bit of Wikipedia-ing.

2. Combined arms, the Romans used everything from spears to siege artillery to shortswords to archers, the Samurai used swords and bows. They might be able to do fancy swordwork, but that wont stop the eighty pound rock that just landed on your head.


What use is a siege artillery against a group of monted samurai? Why would the samurai just satnd still while the rocks were flying towards them?

Also, the samurai had other waepons than the katana (which, by the way, would be of much better steel than the gladius, given the excellent swords-making abilities of the Japanese) - they also had small swords and daggers.

Also, while the wooden armour might be less resistent than an iron armour, it would be much lighter, giving the Japanese more flexibility.

Same counts for shield: the samurai didn't use shields since they would rely on their speed and flexibility to defeat the enemy, not on their defense.

What use is a siege artillery against a group of monted samurai? Why would the samurai just satnd still while the rocks were flying towards them?

Also, the samurai had other waepons than the katana (which, by the way, would be of much better steel than the gladius, given the excellent swords-making abilities of the Japanese) - they also had small swords and daggers.

Also, while the wooden armour might be less resistent than an iron armour, it would be much lighter, giving the Japanese more flexibility.

Same counts for shield: the samurai didn't use shields since they would rely on their speed and flexibility to defeat the enemy, not on their defense.

Mate, no one's saying the samauri were pants! The point is, you're describing a form of warfare that favours individual action. When confronted with a large group that relies on group mentality, group defence, and group attack, they'd be in trouble. I don't care how light and flexible you are, you can't dodge missiles (arrows, slingshot, bolts, rocks into dense troop formations, javelins, throwing spears). And if you go into the close press of dense heavy infantry, that same lack of protection will, in the long run, cause you massive casualities.

Neither side are gods, OK? They're supremely fit fighting men, skilled in their own way, who came from different martial backgrounds. In a lot (most?) situations, I believe the Roman model of armies would beat the Samauri model allowing for equal numbers in a pitched battle.

Chuck Norris all the way !!!
:sniper: :mp5: :gundge: ;)

Elgesh']Mate, no one's saying the samauri were pants! The point is, you're describing a form of warfare that favours individual action. When confronted with a large group that relies on group mentality, group defence, and group attack, they'd be in trouble. I don't care how light and flexible you are, you can't dodge missiles (arrows, slingshot, bolts, rocks into dense troop formations, javelins, throwing spears). And if you go into the close press of dense heavy infantry, that same lack of protection will, in the long run, cause you massive casualities.

Neither side are gods, OK? They're supremely fit fighting men, skilled in their own way, who came from different martial backgrounds. In a lot (most?) situations, I believe the Roman model of armies would beat the Samauri model allowing for equal numbers in a pitched battle.

You assume that the Japanese did individual-style combat. That is not true. In the Middle Ages, Japanese warlords were constantly fighting each other with rather big armies. Have you sen the movie Ran (by Kurosawa)? It shows such a battle.

We in the West have this idealized picture of the solitary samurai. In reality, I think that the samurai could indeed create very disciplined armies. After all, don't forget that individualism is not very common in Japan and discipline is one of the biggest virtues. 500 years ago, these characteristics were probably even more developped.

Chuck Norris all the way !!!
:sniper: :mp5: :gundge: ;)Posted by Oesling

Also, the samurai had other waepons than the katana (which, by the way, would be of much better steel than the gladius, given the excellent swords-making abilities of the Japanese) - they also had small swords and daggers.

The short swords were for killing themselves if they lost the war! GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT

Chuck Norris all the way !!!
:sniper: :mp5: :gundge: ;)



Also, the samurai had other waepons than the katana (which, by the way, would be of much better steel than the gladius, given the excellent swords-making abilities of the Japanese) - they also had small swords and daggers.

The short swords were for killing themselves if they lost the war! GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT

Also, Oesling, remember to overuse annoying gun smilies and caps lock.

The short swords were for killing themselves if they lost the war! GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT


Haha

Yeah, whatever.

I guess your whole knowledge about Japanese culture comes from comics and videogames, right?


If your vocabulary is actually bigger than 200 words, you might try to read this page:

http://www.geocities.com/alchemyst/koshirae/koshirae.htm

I can't believe it's been six pages and no one has said Vin Diesel or Mr T. yet.

'Vin Diesel or Mr T. yet'

By the way...
I think the Romans and Japanese would realize that its pointless fighting each other and gang up on the Koreans.
Poor Korea, the Poland of Asia.

You[r argument] assume[s] that the Japanese did individual-style combat. That is not true. In the Middle Ages, Japanese warlords were constantly fighting each other with rather big armies. Have you sen the movie Ran (by Kurosawa)? It shows such a battle.

We in the West have this idealized picture of the solitary samurai. In reality, I think that the samurai could indeed create very disciplined armies.

"The cult of personality...and the quest for individuality" "concept of 'central authority' (as in the bakufu) carried less weight then force of personality" "we may safely assume that most generals led elements of a militarily eclectic nature" "many of these battles were rather straightforward affairs" http://www.samurai-archives.com/military.html

"samurai armies were loosely organized coalitions, temporarily knit together"muse.jhu.edu/journals/journal_ of_japanese_studies/v031/31.2lamers.pdf

"We cannot overlook the role that culture might play in this contest" "A sword can cut quite well from almost all angles around or underneath a shield. Indeed, since the shield side is so well guarded, the opponent is the one limited to attacking to only one side –the non-shield side...Kenjutsu (Japanese swordsmanship), though consisting of very effective counter-cutting actions, also has no real indigenous provisions for fighting shields." "Those who think the Medieval sword and shield was and is just a “wham-bam, whack-whack” fight are as greatly misinformed as those who imagine the katana was handled in some mysterious and secret manner and can cut through anything as if it were a light-saber" ...

..."As can be seen, there are just far too many variables and unknowns to make a judgment either way for such a theoretical question as who could defeat whom" "There is so much unnecessary emotion encountered when fervent proponents of one or the other" http://www.thearma.org/essays/knightvs.htm

(For the last few quotes, I couldn't find a romans vs Samauri, but these exerpts seemed relevant :) )

I think they broadly support the 'romans would mostly win, due to military style and culture', but the last ones just help keep everything in perspective; certainly, apologies if I took things too far :)

Why after 7 pages is there no poll?

Against these so-called "samuri?" Romans would win.
But against the samurai, that would be a whole new battle

Against these so-called "samuri?" Romans would win.
But against the samurai, that would be a whole new battle

Spelling Nazi

The Samurai

each one has dedicated their whole life to their craft, plus they got horses and most of them were archers too
while the legionares are mere foot soldiers
even 5000 elite roman legionaires would probably lose against 5000 good samurai

The Samurai

each one has dedicated their whole life to their craft, plus they got horses and most of them were archers too
while the legionares are mere foot soldiers
even 5000 elite roman legionaires would probably lose against 5000 good samurai

And yet those 'mere foot soldiers' managed to conquer... well, need I say more?

The Samuri would charge and the Romans would throw spears at tehm and kill about 25%. The Samuri would attack were tehy have the most friends already there and the Romans would surond them and cut 'em to peices. Rome takes 50% dead or wounded. Samuri all get killed. :mp5: :mp5: :mp5:

and a roman legion had archers and calvary things that the samurai didn't use. The archers and spears kill about half the calvary kills 10% and the legionares kill the rest
20% roman loeses