I agree 100% with you Mr. Curtis. I would say that the agressive demystification of western arts is often done while ignoring the myths surrounding eastern arts. When one puts Ashida Kim in the same basket as Otake Risuke, it says a lot.

Well since I am now at the end of a semester of pre-japanese history let me give my 2 cents.

I think Spartans would win against early samurai because until the Muromachi era samurai fought in mounted duels and not one on one, truth is there seems to be little emphasis on tactics as combat was rather ritualized. How ever once we get to sengoku not only does the samurai armor improve (o-yoroi was terribly bulky and uncomfortable armor made out of iron scales or kozane. The armor was not even well designed for sword fighting since mounted archery was its purpose) but tactics and a more "modern" style of fighting come to the for ground. At which point I think the ashigaru would win as a teppo (matchlock) can blast through anything known to spartan or samurai (short of nanban armor).

Theres no doubt in my mind that the samurai would win both on one -to-one and battle formations.

1.the samruia as you must all know are taken at birth and placed by there sword wich will be with them the day that they die (a familiar thing to me is that it reminds me of U.S. Marines )anyway after that they are put in to a rigid and vigirous training the majority of it one-to-one combat also of the samurai code:Bushido

2.The spartans being born and raised to be the perfect killing machine were given bronze armor of course someone mentioned this earlier but the samruais didn't always use Steel or iron they mainly used leather as it was flexible and light plus if they were using Steel armor how the hell would they use their bows.

3.The spartans formation has flaws the enemy could sorruond them or go behind them while another force is in front of them if they tried to move there formation it would possibly break up.Or the enemy could sorruond them and they being pressed on all sides would no doubt get in a circular formation thus having the enemy archers excellent targets maybe they would put there shield up above there heads the ones behind the front ranks and probaly tire out also as there front ranks start dwindling the ones in the back are exposed for some brief time thus exposed to both elements and if that person where to get killed in that breif time the one behind him also might be killed thus have a gap in the Formation.

4.also i was watching a show called mansers and they had a kantana go againt a .45 and the sword spilt the bullet in half also i was watching the history channel and they had this famous long ago samurai he got his bow and sunk an entire ship with one arrow also as they where coming for him he was the first to commit seppuku or something like that.

5.seems to me like we got ourselves two Light weight boxers

1.to the replies I just watch the History Channel and they usually have like specials on samurais and spartans or both it was said that they use alot of leather because they used there steel and iron for there swords.Also for the Steel armor preventing using a Bow i don't think you can even in chain mail plus it would probaly make them inaccurate also steel armor were usually for more.....i don't know i,m kinda stuck at this part(what we call a brain fart)but anyways if they used leather they be able to pick it out of their armor or dodge them also they were usually sorruonded by the enemy and if there army was getting beaten they had to at least be more flexible and kill alot of enemies before they got killed because it was rare for a samurai to retreat,but if they did it would take forever to take off their armor and commit seppsuko if they used metal armor also the only metal you,ll ever see on a samurai would be either his face mask and the swords he carried besides the tip of arrows.

2.well i,m not sure wich gun it was so i placed a random number also the Samruias would either attack them frontal charge or seeing that it is an Inferior choice they'd probaly climber the cliffs with ropes and ladders and Bombard them with arrows from the front and fro above also if the Samurais ever got to meet the Spartans it would be a Miracle like thing also the samurais barley had any ships thats why the euros met them first well actually the Japanese did have ships but they were usually meant for fishing(Sushi).

yeah that's all i got!

Both Samurai and Spartans primarily used metal armour. If a Spartan in particular could not equip himself with a bronze cuirass then would not be classed as a Spartan and would not fight in the phalanx. Regardling leather there is very little evidence to siuggest that any classical Greek fighter wore leather armour. It was predominantly made from linen or metal.

Lafayette C Curtis wrote:

Quote:

BTW, was metal armor really necessary for Spartans in general? As far as I know, it was a must for the Spartiatai/homoioi, but the perioikoi and neodamodeis/helot hoplites were not held to such exacting equipment standards. Never mind that "Spartan" armies sometimes had few true Lacedaemonians (let alone Spartiates!), making up the lack with contingents of allies and mercenaries.... (Agesilaus in Asia is perhaps one extreme example.)

As the Linothorax was thought to be the most populat body armour for hoplites by 450 BC or so, it would not be necassary! Of course some think the Linothrax may have had some metal scales, so it becomes a bit more hazy.

But to be a Spartan Equal you had to go through the training and become a citizen, although there is one example hwere one did not go through the training, the renegade Athenian (forget his name at the moment). Of course, they may have made exceptions from time to time, but I would think he would have been "adopted" as a citizen.

There was mention somewhere, of course I cannot remember where, where A Spartan Hoplite army was supported by Helot peltasts, or at least lighter armoured troops functioning as such.

Hey, the one thing I'm thinking of with the archer - could this be an exaggerated story where a fire arrow caused a severe shipboard fire?

... I'm not going to comment on anything else, as I am not well versed in either Greek or Japanese history. however, that piece on tactics...

the 'flaws' that you pointed out in the phalanx applies to every other military power in existence. If you are outflanked or surrounded, you are generally dead. This applies to everyone who uses the battle line, and most pre-gunpowder armies do. You could argue that the phalanx itself is a pure carnation of the battleline, in the sense that it is very concentrated in the front with very little protection on the flank or rear. However, almost all of the greek armies had allied forces in the form of light skirmishers(and Cavalry, after Phillip II) protecting their flanks, eliminating much of the problem with such a rigid formation.

You need to be very careful when debating military tactics. No civilization ever depended on only one type of units to fight their wars and thus comparing one warrior with another without regard for supporting units is largely moot.