NationStates Jolt Archive

What exactly is part four?

A better question would be to ask whether the Samurai or Spartans would win.

Samuria were a bunch of peace loving hippies.

Bann-ed - now you're just getting cocky.

Samuria or Spartans?

simple LG pies both sides to death, then burries them in mud.

What exactly is part four?

the fourth thread in the "who will win" series I remember doing 3 other who will win threads

Samurai peace loving? They hack people up on command dude!

Perhaps the Samurai did, the Samuria only hacked pot on command before sitting around playing flowery songs about love on their primitive guitars.

Bann-ed - now you're just getting cocky.

When you do the Kessel Run as fast as I do, you don't need to listen to Han Solo's advice. :p

A better question would be to ask whether the Samurai or Spartans would win.

Samuria were a bunch of peace loving hippies.

Bann-ed - now you're just getting cocky.

Samurai peace loving? They hack people up on command dude!

I'd say it would be a draw.

Unless the Spartans had Gerry Butler on their side and the Samurais were cursed with Der Kouch Hopper. At which point Sparta wins decisively.

I'd say it would be a draw.

Unless the Spartans had Gerry Butler on their side and the Samurais were cursed with Der Kouch Hopper. At which point Sparta wins decisively.

Or Tom Cruise (http://www.imdb.com/media/rm3873283328/tt0325710)?

[/dulurk]

Although even the earliest Samurai (640 AD or so) have a ~1100 year technology bonus in their favor, they have a resource problem: Uchigatanas and (much later) katanas are of little value against metal armor and shields. The naginata of the lower-rank Samurai would also be of little value, as their weilders would have poor defense against the heavy Spartan spears. Even fast forwarding the Samurai to 1500 where they have long spears (yari), finely made katana and such wouldn't erase the deficit. Yari (archers) were only accurate to 50 meters, maybe 100 in a volley -- comparable to Spartan levels, so that's a wash.

If the Spartans (say, Battle of Thermopylae vintage; 480BC or so) could form a phalanx and fight in their method, they'd stymie the Samurai and probably win if there are equal numbers. There is simply no Samurai method of warfare for dealing with this sort of defense.
Likewise, if the Samurai were able to get the Spartans to have to fight a mobile battle on an unchosen ground, they would likely win if only because the Spartans would be less able to cope in sword-to-sword combat against the longer Japanese blades.

The Samurai, because I like being arbitrary and because I love Japan.:D

Tonight we dine in hell!
prob,ably Sparta, if their phalanxes weren't flanked, head on the Samuri would lose, in a prolonged battle it's hard to say. Each have their merits, but i'd go with the Spartan's because of the brilliant phalanx formation, which decimates most enemies (well it does in Rome anyway).
But then i don't have extensive knowledge of the Samuri, other than they had big swords and were born to fighting, and pretty good at fighting.
The Spartans were born to fight, and bred purely to fight well, also pretty good at fighting, but then their lack of armour could be a weakness.

LG. He defeated Chuck Norris.

Or Tom Cruise (http://www.imdb.com/media/rm3873283328/tt0325710)?

Yeah, Tom Cruise is too short to make a decent samurai. Or a decent anything really.

Depends on sooo many things...

Samurai had steel. Spartans had lesser metals.

If one japanese samurai general could take troops with nodachis or katanas and cut the Sarisas to slowly defeat the phalanxes, I'd say the samurai.

Plus, bow armed cavalry could easily decimate all those bronze armor-clad boys. Japanese had plenty of those, even if their shock cavalry sucked and was rare. (anyway, shock cavalry is not supposed to be good against phalanxes).

Samurai were used to fight against pike formations. Normal ashigaru regiments formed in those. I believe they could have an edge for knowing how the enemy can be fought off in the first clash. Spartans wouldn't know how to fight the samurai anyway.

I am not a great fan of the samurai war style outside their turf, but I think the spartans would be one of the easiest opponents available. Roman legions, european knights...another matter entirely. Even athenians, I am pretty sure the samurai would have more problems with all those warmachines than with a phalanx.

Perhaps the Samurai did, the Samuria only hacked pot on command before sitting around playing flowery songs about love on their primitive guitars.

I smell blarney.

My vote: Samurai would win because they have steel weapons (compared to the Spartan iron) and are otherwise better equipped. In addition, they have a tradition hundreds of years older.

I smell blarney.

My vote: Samurai would win because they have steel weapons (compared to the Spartan iron) and are otherwise better equipped. In addition, they have a tradition hundreds of years older.

I like the way you think, Parkus.;)

I smell blarney.

My vote: Samurai would win because they have steel weapons (compared to the Spartan iron) and are otherwise better equipped. In addition, they have a tradition hundreds of years older.

I don't know if the age of the tradition would make any difference in this contest. They have a lot of experience fighting their enemies and neighbors, but nothing like what the Spartans would present. And I don't know if the steel would have as big an effect as everyone thinks it would, iron is softer obviously, but we aren't talking about it being cut in half with just one blow by the other sword, it would take time.

Or Tom Cruise (http://www.imdb.com/media/rm3873283328/tt0325710)?

Like I said, Der Kouch Hopper (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5qOS4Q39sg).