[Katie Neal]

this is pure hyperthetical. there are no greacian spartans left and no pre-industrial age samurai's left so it will have to be based on.

skill. (whether they fight better in groups or one on one combat)
Material. of armour and weapons
the arms and armour they had.

Typical Spartan: Corinthian helm, bronze breast plate, greaves, bracers, sandles and red tunic.

arms: 5 foot "spartan" round shield, 6 footer spear with butt spike. and a Kopis or falcutta.

Typical Samurai: full suit Japanese style armour with or with out "western" solid breast plate influence, sandles and helm with a face covering.

arms: Katana, Wakasashi and japenese spear.

let the debate begin!!!

[George Hill]

It's obviously unfair to give the Spartan bronze and the Samurai steel, but........... The Spartan will still thrash him.

Of coruse, if the contest involes anything to do with art, the Samurai will win.

[Taylor Ellis]

Unless you believe that individual fighting ability is soley dependant on ethnicity there is no way to answer this question.

[Benjamin H. Abbott]

Two-handed spear against shield and spear? My money's certainly on the Samurai. I'd also say his armour is a bit better.

[Mike Arledge]

Spartans really weren't meant to fight one on one. While no doubt there were all individually excellent warriors, the Spartans were known for their ferocity in the phalanx. The Greek style of fighting during that time was about staying in line and covering your left side mate with your shield. Swordsmanship was rudimentary, and greek spears were far too long to be of much use in single combat.

So, based upon all that, its just a difficult question to resond to, times, tachnology and tactics were so different.

[David Wilson]

The classic Spartan sword was actually a very short double-edge sword -- not much more is known about it other than that. There's a rather famous anecdote from history, when a Spartan warrior complains to his commander that his sword is much too short, to which his commander replies, "get closer!".

I am not sure how long the Spartan shorty was, but it probably wasn't a whole lot longer than a Tanto....

As to the Spartans using a Kopis or Machaira, well, it's possible, on an individual basis and depending on time. But during most of the "classical" Greek era they used the (really) short sword.

[Benjamin H. Abbott]

[Mike Arledge]

[Katie Neal]

This is great, im seeing real passion with these answers.


bronze is not as good as steel, its softer, dosent hold an edge well and bends from true, iron is better but nothing compared to steel. so weather they weilded a iron falcutta or a bronze kopis. the spartan would be at a disadvantage.

the samurai had decent armour, leather, metal chain and wood but it was made to with stand a more slashing/hacking blow then a thrust. which is what the greek would do with his spear. this puts the samurai at a disadvantage.

allso the spears in the phalynx whiich you gents are thinking about are called cyrissa's. 14ft long and useless one on one. im referring to their shorter breathren the 6 footer spear with butt spike.

i'd think that the spartan would win. they both worriorshave an amazing warlike want and spirit, but i think the spartan useing a shield would be the decider.

how would a samurai get around a 5 foot shield, when there cuture doesnt use, train or fight with them??


just a thought

[Max von Bargen]

[Florian H.]

Good evening everyone
I think the better warrior would win
In spartan society every newborn child was shown to a council which decided whether the baby is allowed to live or not. So I think in general spartans might have been physically tougher because spartan society had no room for any form of physical deficiency. Their whole life was affected by military life, strength and valor in a much more extreme way than in feudal japan I think. For example could a spartan have been excluded from society if he behaved cowardly in war for example.They lived in a social and military unit, much like romans did, called a Syskenie and if one was excluded he lost all his civil rights. So I think spartan martial society was much more extreme. Sparta didn't have city walls, and it's said that this was because they didn't need them.
Also I think in one on one combat the outcome is not so much depending on the equipment, besides one is armed with a firearm and the other one with a stone. If they don't know each other and their way of fighting luck might be as decisive as choosing the right way to attack. So maybe intuition, witts and a lot of luck is much more important than being whether japanese or spartan. I think certain martial societies gain their fearsome reputation because they spawn armies of equally capable warriors and conquer lands and kingdoms with them and not because they have individual champions, because besides acting as inspiration for the masses having one good warrior in your army is worthless in a military context. I don't know any example where one individual would have been decisive for winning a war besides the fact that he inspired his men. So a spartan or a samurai could have been beaten by ANY warrior.
Just my opinion of course
Best regards, Florian

[Alexander Hinman]

[Benjamin H. Abbott]

[George Hill]

[Felix Wang]

Many of these comparisons are balanced, but this one is probably not; I would favor the samurai. Several of these points have already been mentioned.

The samurai's spear is in two hands - it is much, much faster than a spear in one hand, and has a longer reach; it can be better used for slicing and can be wielded as a staff.

The samurai's armour was quite capable of stopping thrusts, it had to stop plenty of arrows and more than a few Japanese spears.

The Spartan's gear is optimized for fighting in line; half of his aspsis covers the guy on his left, and his right is partly covered by another man's shield. This is not optimal gear for fighting one on one. The samurai's gear is not so specialized. Training a hoplite concentrated on formation drills, whereas training a samurai included a huge amount of single combat work.

Both men carry a spear and a short sword, and will have a good idea of what they can do. One carries a two-handed longer sword, which is unlike anything a Spartan is likely to have ever heard of, let alone fought against. The Spartan has a shield, which might cause some trouble for the samurai, but of the two, the katana is probably more dangerous than the aspsis.

[Harry Pretat]

Based on what I know and the information presented here, I would have to go with the Samurai, but the comparison is rather unfair I think. As Felix W. said, the Spartan's equipment is designed to work in formations and the Samurai's is more suited to individual combat.

I wonder what might happen if a Spartan army faced a Japanese army?

[Benjamin H. Abbott]

[George Hill]

[quote="Benjamin H. Abbott"]

[Adam Simmonds]

after giving this much careful thought,
i have come to the conclusion that it would depend on whose gods were stronger - the spartans or the samurais. if both sets of gods were of equal strength, then it would probably come down to who died first

cheers, adam

[Martin Wilkinson]

As someone has said, it won't come down to who's equipment is better, it'll come down to who's the better warrior.

[quote= "Benjamin H Abbott"]It's just as likely that Silver would have considered the katana superior to everything else.
[/quote]

I doubt it, Silver favoured cut AND thrust weapons, the Katana is a cutter, not a thruster. Whilst it undoutedly can thrust, much like a thin rapier can cut, it's not great at it, as it's not designed for it.

Silver had his favoured weapon at hand, the Cut and Thrust sword of Rennassaince Europe. The Katana would've been a flawed weapon to him, like the Rapier was.