NationStates Jolt Archive

I think a Roman leagion would win, and here are my reasons:
1. The Legion would be better organized.

2. Before the Romans charged they would throw their Pila(spears) which has a special head that bent on impact and made it so no one could throw it back

3. The Romans had much better cavelry such Legionary or Preatorian cavelry

4. The Romans would have had much better general

5.The Romans had shields

6. The had better armor (segmatus)

7. They could form a testudo to block on coming arrows (the foot soilders could that is)

8.The Romans had much better heavy weapons such as a balista, a scorpian, or an onager

I think it might be a close fight but i think the romans would come out on top in the end. So debate and if you disagree post your reason(s). Thanks

that's ridiculous. Roman infantry was barely out of the bronze age, and while superior in the classical theatre of war where outpeformed by the superior weaponry and tactics of the Germanic Hordes. The Samurai at their height however represented the pinacle of pre-gunpowder warfare; honed by centuries of warfare. The Romans would be slaughtered.

that's ridiculous. Roman infantry was barely out of the bronze age, and while superior in the classical theatre of war where outpeformed by the superior weaponry and tactics of the Germanic Hordes. The Samurai at their height however represented the pinacle of pre-gunpowder warfare; honed by centuries of warfare. The Romans would be slaughtered.

I don't have to argue if he keeps it up.

Remember, hungry barbariens with sticks sacked rome. A modern gunpowder army brougt the samurai to an end.

didn't you already make this exact same thread? We dinnae need 2!

This one has a poll.

that's ridiculous. Roman infantry was barely out of the bronze age, and while superior in the classical theatre of war where outpeformed by the superior weaponry and tactics of the Germanic Hordes. The Samurai at their height however represented the pinacle of pre-gunpowder warfare; honed by centuries of warfare. The Romans would be slaughtered.

only when surrounded and outnumbered at least 2 to 1 in the tutoburg forest.

I think someone's been playing too much rome total war

that's ridiculous. Roman infantry was barely out of the bronze age, and while superior in the classical theatre of war where outpeformed by the superior weaponry and tactics of the Germanic Hordes. The Samurai at their height however represented the pinacle of pre-gunpowder warfare; honed by centuries of warfare. The Romans would be slaughtered.

Hmm, it is somewhat difficult, since it is comparable to facing the Samurai with Napoleon's finest legions, and then debating how long it would take the Napoleonic forces to massacre the Samurai.

However, 5000 smurai, against 5000 English yeomen archers, personally, I'm with the yeomen, who could, incidentally, have outshot any regiment at Waterloo, as Cornwell explains.

1. Definitely true. The Romans had a unique system of weakening the enemy with lines of troops, and rotating fresh and nonfresh troops in and out of the battle.

2. Also good. However, Legionaries don't use bows, and samurai do, so other than the siege weapons the Romans would be outclassed in the range department.

3. Are you getting this right from Rome: Total War? That is one of the worst inaccuracies in the game. The only Roman cavalry unit realistically portrayed in the game is the equites, who were light cavalry that would harass enemy lines. The Legions after the Marian reform had cavalry auxilia, either irregular troops or those from foreign lands recruited for special fighting styles. There was no Legionary Cavalry, or at least it definitely wasn't called that. As for Praetorian Cavalry, give me a break. The Praetorians were derived from the Praetors, a military office during the republic. Later the term 'Praetorian Guard' was used for the Emperor's guards, all of the Emperor's guards, whether they were cavalry or infantry.

4. Not necessarily true. The Romans had many amazing generals, though, Marius, Pompey, Caesar, Trajan... so you might be right. I don't know much about Samurai commanders.

5. Definitely true. The Roman shield wall was formidable, an advancement of the Greek Phalanx where each man covered his neighbor.

6. Also, I believe, true. From what I know of Samurai, they used bamboo armour, which, while not bad, was certainly not as good as segmented steel plate.

7. Yes, this is a good tactic. Although soldiers moved much more slowly, this drawback was largely negated by the fact they were essentially impervious. The testudo was so strong another rank of soldiers could climb up on the shields of the first!

8. Yes, this would take out quite a few samurai before the armies closed.

As for 'barely out of the bronze age,' the Romans had steel armour and weapons. Steel. The Germans were often subdued by the Romans, like the Gauls before them, the only thing in which the Romans were beaten was when the Huns brought stirrups into the fray, but by then the Empire was in decline anyway.

I'd go with the Romans. Yes, the Samurai honed nongunpowder warfare, but so did the Romans. Both had around a thousand years to perfect their style of warfare. I believe that individually the Samurai would be better, but in a large battle the Romans would carry the day with superior tactics and cohesion. To my knowledge, the Samurai were like knights in some ways, and their main forte was not cohesion with the rest of the army in a way that would ensure victory. This was demonstrated when the Romans defeated Spartacus. Spartacus had many highly trained gladiators who could best a legionary in single combat, but his forces did not work well together and thus even the early Roman legion, while outnumbered severely, still defeated the slave army.

Hmm, it is somewhat difficult, since it is comparable to facing the Samurai with Napoleon's finest legions, and then debating how long it would take the Napoleonic forces to massacre the Samurai.

However, 5000 smurai, against 5000 English yeomen archers, personally, I'm with the yeomen, who could, incidentally, have outshot any regiment at Waterloo, as Cornwell explains.

Napoleon had GUNS! Of course he would win.

The yeoman thing, if the samurai were mounted with their bows, or even on foot with their bows, they are not going to get slaughtered. They were, I say again, trained first as archers. The Samurai were not at Waterloo.