Info Favorites Register Log in
myArmoury.com Discussion Forums

Forum index Memberlist Usergroups Spotlight Topics Search
Forum Index > Off-topic Talk > Spartan vs Samurai. Who would win? Reply to topic
This is a standard topic Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next 
Author Message
Dan Howard




Location: Maitland, NSW, Australia
Joined: 08 Dec 2004

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 3,636

PostPosted: Mon 15 Dec, 2008 10:05 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Gary Teuscher wrote:
NOt sure where his "evidence" comes from though, but I know our evidence on the Linothorax is based much upon written records as opposed to any actual examples..

He doesn't have any evidence. There is no iconographical evidence of any Spartan wearing any armour other than a bronze cuirass. There aren't any mentions of Spartans wearing linen armour in any surviving text.
View user's profile Send private message
Lafayette C Curtis




Location: Indonesia
Joined: 29 Nov 2006
Reading list: 7 books

Posts: 2,698

PostPosted: Sat 20 Dec, 2008 9:02 pm    Post subject: Re: tis         Reply with quote

Darryl Aoki wrote:
Could helots, as non-citizens, serve in the Spartan army as hoplites? I thought that, as a rule, hoplites had to be citizens and had to provide their own kit (armor, shield, and weaponry).


Originally, yes, hoplites had to be citizens. But things gradually changed, and in any case helots weren't exactly non-citizen slaves either; it would be more accurate to regard them as a social caste that might have been quite low in the Lacedaemonian hierarchy but was still distinctly Lacedaemonian nevertheless.

Or I might have saved the bother of having to say all that if I had simply told you to Google up "neodamodeis"....


Gary Teuscher wrote:
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.


That's probably Herodotus on Plataea; his account is a bit famous (or notorious) for its mention of the Spartans bringing along seven helots "armed for war" for every Spartiate, and there has been a lively scholarly discussion about whether these helots actually fought in the battle as anything more than servants than baggage guards. Needless to say, there doesn't seem to be a widespread academic consensus about the matter (yet), and in any case Plataea was an atypical battle in more than one respect so it might not be wise to generalize from it in order to get answers about other, more typical Greek battles.


Michael Curl wrote:
Well they obviously weren't utilized well as the Gundan was terrible, which is why it was disbanded. As far as not having tactics, that was an extrapolation of mine from the duel style of warfare and from what I understood from the gunki-monos.


Um...some Japanese armies and commanders were obviously losers when it came to applying tactics, but this shouldn't be generalized into the whole mass of Japanese warriors and leadership. Like any other military establishment of the time, the Japanese armies had excellent and good as well as mediocre and poor examples. Of course it'd be quite naive to dismiss the tactical execution capabilities of the good pre-Mongol Invasion Japanese armies; for example, the 12th-century Minamoto armies pulled out the "false reinforcements" trick against their Taira opponents at least twice, once at Yokotagawara (under Yoritomo) and once more at Kurikara (under Yoshinaka). Yoshitsune's assault on the Taira stronghold at Ichinotani also involved a flanking movement that would have qualified as a brilliant (if reckless) move by contemporary standards. Finally, there was one feature of battlefield tactics that the Japanese adopted from the Chinese and the Koreans and never really discarded until the modernization of the army during the (19th-century) Bakumatsu: squads of archers standing and fighting behind a line of large mantlets that protected them from the enemy's answering shots. If that wasn't a tactical formation then I don't know what is.

(In short, I think popular literature tends to hype the individual prowess of both Japanese and Spartan warriors while naively downplaying the tactical capabilities of their armies.)
View user's profile Send private message
Michael Curl




Location: Northern California, US
Joined: 06 Jan 2008

Posts: 487

PostPosted: Sat 20 Dec, 2008 9:47 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

The Mongol invasion was against samurai during the Kamakura period, not the Gundan during the Heian, in which the nobility were not warriors.

However since I was talking about samurai in the first place, my only rebuttal is, true-dat Wink

E Pluribus Unum
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
R.M. Henson




Location: Honolulu Hawaii
Joined: 14 Feb 2008
Likes: 1 page

Posts: 49

PostPosted: Wed 24 Dec, 2008 10:06 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

there's quite a bit of posts so far....

From what I've gathered from the book "The First Samurai" and some early Japanese history classes, the samurai were predominantly horse riding archers. At least this is true from 400 CE (the Emishi and later on the Nara who adopted their battle concepts) to 1700 (after the Settlement of 1598 and the ensuing peace thereafter). Not to say that Samurai were not lethal on foot, but Samurai were wholly "elite" in status equal to aristocrats. Usually very small groups of horse riders, literally in the hundreds at most in even the largest major Japanese battles.

This is in great contrast to Spartan Phalanx warfare which was totally on foot and had several thousand men in number.

In agreement with some stated before me, Japanese armor were designed for improving mobility for an archer on horseback, not fighting on foot. Also worth mentioning Samurai rarely used the Yari as it was commonly a foot soldiers weapon, not a Samurai's.

Also as some stated before, a Spartan soldiers armor is designed for fighting together as a group with your spear mates protecting your non armored side. If we are comparing Spartan spear and shield to Japanese Yari (normally a foot soldiers weapon, not a samurai's) I'd say the Spartans would win out in unit to unit combat against a unit of Japanese yari wielding foot soldiers.

Also worth mentioning is the habit of Japanese units breaking down constantly in Japanese history. In a unit of say 500 samurai, if as little as 70 fell due to a shower of arrows, the whole unit would retreat. So in a Unit to Unit morale comparison I'd say the Spartans had far better mental steel as well.

I won't compare man to man as many before me have stated it's impossible to truly say as it's highly individualistic. And in a true war, the less mobile Phalanx pattern would fall to the more mobile Japanese mounted archery of the samurai using hit and run.


Quote:
Something to also understand about this matchup is the Spartans always cheat when fighting. They only owe honer to the Spartan Way of Life. Samurai have a different honer system. Part of the Spartan training system was to under-feed boys. They were expected to steal in order complete their diet. If they were caught, they were beaten. They wanted the best cheating army possible.



The Samurai had a different "honor" system, yes if you mean "bushido" but only after the 1700's I believe after largely peace had been achieved. During more of the warring states and before in smaller skirmishes, surprise attacks were the mainstay of Japanese tactics. Being "cheap", to put it bluntly, characterizes Japanese warefare very early on, as far back as 900 I believe.

Compagni of Schola St. George
http://www.scholasaintgeorge.org/
View user's profile Send private message
Bill Tsafa




Location: Brooklyn, NY
Joined: 20 May 2004

Posts: 599

PostPosted: Wed 24 Dec, 2008 11:59 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

R.M. Henson wrote:
there's quite a bit of posts so far....

From what I've gathered from the book "The First Samurai" and some early Japanese history classes, the samurai were predominantly horse riding archers. At least this is true from 400 CE (the Emishi and later on the Nara who adopted their battle concepts) to 1700 (after the Settlement of 1598 and the ensuing peace thereafter). Not to say that Samurai were not lethal on foot, but Samurai were wholly "elite" in status equal to aristocrats. Usually very small groups of horse riders, literally in the hundreds at most in even the largest major Japanese battles.

This is in great contrast to Spartan Phalanx warfare which was totally on foot and had several thousand men in number.


You bring up a very important point that was actually underscored by a history professor in a lecture I took. It was his conclusion that the fighting style very much influenced the political structure that developed in various cultures. The Greeks fought as infantry and every man counted. This was reflected in their various political systems. Not all of Greece was democratic, but even in monarchical states the common citizens were very influential.

The counter example that the professor used was the Persians who where Calvary based. Those societies tend to be more hierarchical with a strong elite nobility. The common citizens are less influential.

Citizen based armies will always vastly outnumber armies made up of nobles. We saw this happen in the late 15th and 16th century in Europe as large armies of cheap pikemen rendered knights obsolete.

The question now is are we trying to put the Spartans against all the Nobles of Japan? Sparta is and was a small city. The samurai represent a whole divided class of people. The Spartans would not likely be able to field an army more then 4,000 men. If we mix the wrong Japanese feudal states, they might just fight among themselves. Do we include Spartan allies? How likely is it that the feudal lords of Japan would unit and in what numbers? It is not realistic to keep the numbers even (300 Spartans vs 300 samurai), it just does not happen.

This is a good mental exercise to say the least.

No athlete/youth can fight tenaciously who has never received any blows: he must see his blood flow and hear his teeth crack... then he will be ready for battle.
Roger of Hoveden, 1174-1201
www.poconoshooting.com
www.poconogym.com
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
Viktor Johansson




Location: Stockholm
Joined: 27 Apr 2009
Likes: 1 page

Posts: 10

PostPosted: Mon 27 Apr, 2009 6:38 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Samurai must be the most overrated warriors in history. I'm not looking to insult anyone but the simple fact that they didn't use shields speak volumes about how their style of fighting was inefficient, born from isolation and never truly competed with other civilizations except for some rare cases of battle against chinese and mongol. Samurai were great at killing other samurai and not good for much else.

If the Spartan was armed with a shield, spear and short sword and the samurai had a Katana and a smaller Wakashi as sidearm I can only see the fight go something like this.

Sparthan closes distance, Samurai uses overhand slashes that they are so fond of in kendo, Sparthan blocks the slashes with shield and slams the Samurai to the ground with the shield and stabs him to death with the short sword.
View user's profile Send private message
Darryl Aoki





Joined: 12 Oct 2006

Posts: 93

PostPosted: Mon 27 Apr, 2009 8:13 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Viktor Johansson wrote:
Samurai must be the most overrated warriors in history. I'm not looking to insult anyone but the simple fact that they didn't use shields speak volumes about how their style of fighting was inefficient, born from isolation and never truly competed with other civilizations except for some rare cases of battle against chinese and mongol. Samurai were great at killing other samurai and not good for much else.


I'm not sure that disparaging Japanese fighting styles for their lack of shields is a valid argument in and of itself. Samurai probably didn't use shields because they would've been more of a hindrance than help in their preferred mode of combat (mounted archery, or, later, charging with lances). I get the impression from various things I've read that the sword was something of a sidearm, at least in a field battle. (Duels are something different.)

As you mention, one of the limitations of Japanese military practices was their isolation. One wonders if they would've adopted the use of shields had they been more exposed to outside influences, but now we're into the land of "What-If?" It is interesting to note how quickly the Japanese embraced the matchlock though; I wonder if that'd be anything to go off of?

Anyway, just my two cents' worth.
View user's profile Send private message
Max Chouinard




Location: Quebec, Qc
Joined: 23 Apr 2008

Posts: 108

PostPosted: Mon 27 Apr, 2009 10:24 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

... I'll just copy/paste an answer I wrote on deadliest warrior topic:

Quote:
Yes but while they fought on horses, there were still foot soldiers supporting them. Those foot soldiers who are often put aside in history, actually carried shields up to the Heian period, at which time the Japanese began to change their equipment and strategies, who were until then mostly inspired by the Chinese. What happened then is two things: armor became much better in terms of protection, and two handed weapons were preferred. Here is an illustration of emperor Jinmu accompanied with a foot soldier carrying a shield http://horse.shrine.net/samurai/image/jinmu_samurai.jpg

They met with plenty of shields during the Korean peninsula invasion, and it seems it never occurred to them that it was a useful item to have.

Like Michael said, the Japanese kept the tate, a type of pavise, and it seems the kabuto or the jingasa (equivalent of a kettle hat) would be used as a buckler when one was left with a short sword or dagger, Yagyu shingan ryu still practices those techniques. I suppose on the battlefield, one would take the one of a fallen soldier instead of his own though.


Quote:
Sparthan closes distance, Samurai uses overhand slashes that they are so fond of in kendo, Sparthan blocks the slashes with shield and slams the Samurai to the ground with the shield and stabs him to death with the short sword.


While i hate to participate in such hypothetical debate, I would give a better scenario actually: Spartan tries to close range, samurai shoots his matchlock, Spartan dead. The katana would have been used if all other weapons were lost or became useless, not as a primary weapon. Why not a Spartan vs. 16th century knight? You would have about the same result.

Another term for the complete japanese armor is takenishi, or armor that needs no shield. They didn't used shields because they never thought about it or never met anyone who had (on the contrary), but because it was plain useless for them. Try using one with a 20 feet spear, while using a bow/matchlock or any other two handed weapon that were the norm in feudal Japan. I think you'll end up discarding the shield in favor of a more efficient armor.

I don't mean to be rude, but please read a book (or at least the whole thread) before making such uninformed comments.

Maxime Chouinard

Antrim Bata

Quebec City Kenjutsu

I don't do longsword
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Nat Lamb




Location: Melbourne, Australia
Joined: 15 Jan 2009
Likes: 1 page

Posts: 385

PostPosted: Mon 27 Apr, 2009 5:23 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Viktor Johansson wrote:

Sparthan closes distance, Samurai uses overhand slashes that they are so fond of in kendo, Sparthan blocks the slashes with shield and slams the Samurai to the ground with the shield and stabs him to death with the short sword.


I'm sorry, but the kendo thing I just could not let go. To asses the style of fighting used by a culture bassed on a point scoring modern sport is, well, not that helpfull. Bit like saying "I do Judo, which comes from Jujitsu, which evolved from samurai fighting arts. Judo has no punches, so obviously samurai didn't know how to punch"
View user's profile Send private message
Bennison N




Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Joined: 06 Feb 2008
Likes: 1 page

Posts: 416

PostPosted: Mon 27 Apr, 2009 9:30 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I agree with Nat. Kenjutsu, in it's various forms, is a complete art... with attacks, counters and defenses for most situations. It's not perfect, nothing is, but that was not a particularly informed thing to say. Who here would try a melon-splitter on a bronze helmet? Anyone?

Spartan Hoplites didn't train in swordsmanship, unless they were wealthy and could afford a Hoplomachoi (sp?)... So in a one on one with a Bushi, they have a major disadvantage.

"Never give a sword to a man who can't dance" - Confucius

अजयखड्गधारी
View user's profile Send private message
Bill Tsafa




Location: Brooklyn, NY
Joined: 20 May 2004

Posts: 599

PostPosted: Tue 28 Apr, 2009 12:28 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Bennison N wrote:

Spartan Hoplites didn't train in swordsmanship, unless they were wealthy and could afford a Hoplomachoi (sp?)... So in a one on one with a Bushi, they have a major disadvantage.


Not that I think that a Samurai would be a walkover for a Spartan... but here are a few points with regard to the statement above.

In Spartan society there was no "wealthy" Spartans. There were Slaves who constituted 90% of the population and there were Spartans who were also property of the state too. All the land was owned by they state and was distributed to veteran men after there military service was over. The money was very large and bulky to discourage hording. I have no doubt that in reality some men were more influential then others and received a greater piece of the pie but it is a safe bet that any weapons required would have been provided by through the state since this was a military society. It is not wise to assume that Spartans were incompetent with a short sword in single combat, since they used short swords too and spent most of their life training to fight.

The Spartans were primarily concerned with slave uprisings. It was a slave uprising around 700 bc that caused them to adopt the "Spartan Way of Life". The Spartans always anticipated being outnumbered 100 to 1. There were keenly aware that vastly larger army, even untrained and with only sharp sticks, can be a formidable force. Because Spartan lands were Spread through out the Peloponnese, they would have been trained to fight in small units and also in singles combat. One of the rights of passage, as described by Herodotus, a youth would have to fight a large slave to the death in single combat. That is very clear proof that Spartans would have been trained in singles combat from youth. In the movie, 300, the director depicted this right of passage by having the young king fight a wolf. In reality that would have been a large slave. Of course it is also obvious that Spartans were also trained to fight other heavily armored Greek warriors like the Athenians.

No athlete/youth can fight tenaciously who has never received any blows: he must see his blood flow and hear his teeth crack... then he will be ready for battle.
Roger of Hoveden, 1174-1201
www.poconoshooting.com
www.poconogym.com
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
Bennison N




Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Joined: 06 Feb 2008
Likes: 1 page

Posts: 416

PostPosted: Tue 28 Apr, 2009 1:25 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I have heard, though, that Hoplites were required to supply their own equipment.

And that they were required to sneak out and stealthily assassinate the large slave as the rite of passage.

And that only wrestling and the spear and shield were taught by the state as standard for all Hoplites. If extra tutelage in fighting was taught, it was taught by Hoplomachoi (I suspect I'm butchering this word) in special schools for a fee.

I can't recall the references... If you want, I'll look 'em up. Actually, I might do that anyway, because not remembering is really annoying me.

"Never give a sword to a man who can't dance" - Confucius

अजयखड्गधारी
View user's profile Send private message
Bill Tsafa




Location: Brooklyn, NY
Joined: 20 May 2004

Posts: 599

PostPosted: Tue 28 Apr, 2009 7:05 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Bennison N wrote:
I have heard, though, that Hoplites were required to supply their own equipment.

And that they were required to sneak out and stealthily assassinate the large slave as the rite of passage.

And that only wrestling and the spear and shield were taught by the state as standard for all Hoplites. If extra tutelage in fighting was taught, it was taught by Hoplomachoi (I suspect I'm butchering this word) in special schools for a fee.


What you said was true for most of the Greek Polis (City States). Especially true for Athens which tends to be the focus of Greek study because of there influence on Western civilization. Sparta was an anomaly in Greek culture that fascinated other Greeks in their own time.

No athlete/youth can fight tenaciously who has never received any blows: he must see his blood flow and hear his teeth crack... then he will be ready for battle.
Roger of Hoveden, 1174-1201
www.poconoshooting.com
www.poconogym.com
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
William P




Location: Sydney, Australia
Joined: 11 Jul 2010

Posts: 1,523

PostPosted: Thu 14 Jul, 2011 7:35 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Max Chouinard wrote:
... I'll just copy/paste an answer I wrote on deadliest warrior topic:

Quote:
Yes but while they fought on horses, there were still foot soldiers supporting them. Those foot soldiers who are often put aside in history, actually carried shields up to the Heian period, at which time the Japanese began to change their equipment and strategies, who were until then mostly inspired by the Chinese. What happened then is two things: armor became much better in terms of protection, and two handed weapons were preferred. Here is an illustration of emperor Jinmu accompanied with a foot soldier carrying a shield http://horse.shrine.net/samurai/image/jinmu_samurai.jpg

They met with plenty of shields during the Korean peninsula invasion, and it seems it never occurred to them that it was a useful item to have.

Like Michael said, the Japanese kept the tate, a type of pavise, and it seems the kabuto or the jingasa (equivalent of a kettle hat) would be used as a buckler when one was left with a short sword or dagger, Yagyu shingan ryu still practices those techniques. I suppose on the battlefield, one would take the one of a fallen soldier instead of his own though.


Quote:
Sparthan closes distance, Samurai uses overhand slashes that they are so fond of in kendo, Sparthan blocks the slashes with shield and slams the Samurai to the ground with the shield and stabs him to death with the short sword.


While i hate to participate in such hypothetical debate, I would give a better scenario actually: Spartan tries to close range, samurai shoots his matchlock, Spartan dead. The katana would have been used if all other weapons were lost or became useless, not as a primary weapon. Why not a Spartan vs. 16th century knight? You would have about the same result.

Another term for the complete japanese armor is takenishi, or armor that needs no shield. They didn't used shields because they never thought about it or never met anyone who had (on the contrary), but because it was plain useless for them. Try using one with a 20 feet spear, while using a bow/matchlock or any other two handed weapon that were the norm in feudal Japan. I think you'll end up discarding the shield in favor of a more efficient armor.

I don't mean to be rude, but please read a book (or at least the whole thread) before making such uninformed comments.


sorry for ressurecting such an old thread but i had to say this.

to behonest, the arguement of 2 handed weapon use being a reason for not having a shield doesnt fly with me,

aince we have numerous examples of shields that can, and were strapped to the arm/ shoulder and could be used while doing other activities, for example on the 'showus your shields thread, theres an image of someone holding a spear 2 handed and showing the heater strapped to his upper arm, and partly looped around his neck for support.

and one of my fellow reenactors possesses the round. rope grpped cane shield used by the seljuks, the grip of said shield is a series of ropes that can be pulled into different configuratiosn and held various ways and showed me how it can be pulledonto your shoulder and forearm, allowing you to wield a bow, or a 2 handed pike. which might hold some insight as to how he macedonian phalangites used their shields .

not only that we have examples, LIKE the koreans the molgols and other horse peoples including the native american indians.. who all still employed shields.

a more logically convincing arguement would be the armour.. since as ive heard in the thread on japanesearmour here, the Sode ofthe o yoroi were in fact totake the place of shields.. (they dont seem much use in helping protect the top of the shoulder after all.

and the japanese fighting the koreans and chinese during the imjin war. there is ALOT of things that didnt change. the japanes after seeing korean artillery didnt drop everything to change it..

and after meeting the portuguese andin the edo period later didnt change tack to instead using thin straight thrsting weapons which.. (correct me if im wrong) are much better suited to urban combat than a 2 handed sabre which needs room to swing.

its also worth remembering that despite japanese craftsmanship. they never seem to hav gotten the idea to rivet their kusari armour links closed to make them stronger


to me overall, the japanese ive realised are a massive anomoly compared to the trend of combat styles throughout theworld through history from spain to china the trend is fairly constant. japan is strange for a number of reasons.

1, the katana. for a huge majrity of the world the traight double edged and the single edged slasher existed alongsideeach other in europe and in china ( "broadsword" and messer/falchion vs jian and dao)

2a lack of shields as mentioned before.
3 a lack of artillery (they did have traction trebuchets, which are oversized seasaws.
4. they never used axes or maces in battle for some very wierd reason..


as for the question at hand.. well looking at it in terms of single combat im going to favour the samurai but ill define what each side is from in history and what he might have

spartan, im imagining a member of the spartan 'citizenry' i.e not perioiki or helot level. around 450bc
with pilos helm, bronz cuirass, foot guards, and greaves plus aspis. (which according to matthew at on the tread comparing the effectiveness of centregrip over strapp gripped shields noted that the aspis was NOT as heavy as most people think.
http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?p=226771#226771

one group of guys dispute the deadliest warrior results for thesamurai vs both the viking and later the spartiate
now these guys get a reproduction of a aspis, bronze (maybe brass) covering wood, it weighs around 16 pounds they say, matthew amt says that historically, theaaspis were occasionally even as light as a heavier range viking shields (9-10 pounds)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=by6CI2SOp-Q&am...ideo_title (theres a whole series of videos, the one looking at the spartan going all up for 2 hours)

the samurai im imagining would be of the time around the imjiin war/ endofthe sengoku (1550-90's), where the older O yoroi has changed to become he more streamlined, later yoroi featuring fewer, larger plates. and occasionally a completely solid breastplate was worn.

as for helmts and ability to see, alot of smaurai kit possessed the mompo which included the facemask and gorget as being one piece. naturally facemasks dont exactly have big eyeholes either. though your hearing might not be as bad.

weapons would be katana rather than tachi, not the wakizashi, they would have used the tanto or other weapon like the hachikaze or something.

also, remember that the yari was not just the simple double bladed spearhead. but also included kamayari, even things like the jumonji yari (cross shaped spear) the arms of which can be used to hook at peoples limbs.

also we might want to consider that when you dont have a shield in the other arm, and your opponent has this long spear in front of you its more than possible to grab the spear shaft, and stab one handed with the katana. as thrand in his videos aptly demonstrates.

as for longer range weapons, im gonna be unfair to the spartan and give him a teppo (matchlock musket)

theres also other weapons usedfor ndiidual combatlikethe kusarigama, which did not have a simple agricultural sicke blade, bu was thick, straight bladed with a very acute tip not unlike the fluke of halberds and warhammers.
then theres alto that eighted chain.

so overall, spartan; pilos/ corintian helm, breastplate, aspis, dory, spartan xiphs (shorten than the xiphosused by other polis) maybe a javelin. plus greaves and possibly feetcoverings (since the spartans were state funded they may have been provided with these,)

samurai, (1550-90's) later yoroi style, with various components, katana (maybe tachi if he wanted) tanto, yoroi toshi or kabuto wari (curved iron bar with a point plus a small hook facing like a juttes prong, made for anti armour fighting)
then a yari of some sort, id pick a kamayari, maybe a naginata if the samurai wished. as well, (if he had it) possibly even a kusarigama, which has been shown to do decently well against a 16th C european breastplate against bronze, well,. i dunno if id wanna be the spartan.

and if were going with ranged implements , id select a teppo, (since a bow isnt much good agaianst a large dished shield. besides by that time the samurai had largely discarded the yumi in favour of the teppo)


it was once noted in a stephan turnbull book that samrai warfare wentin 4 stages roughly, archery engagement. poleweapon fighting, then using the katana/ tachi , and lastly grappling with tanto.

as for spartan swordsmanship. id imagine that with such a short sword learbnng to fence is largely useless, id imagine ud not NEED to be super skilled. you would usesimilar tactics to the romans, just stab the person in the gut and knock off balance with the shield. i.e bumrushing people. or for close in gutter fighting.
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Eric S




Location: new orleans
Joined: 22 Nov 2009
Reading list: 8 books

Posts: 805

PostPosted: Thu 14 Jul, 2011 2:06 pm    Post subject: Re: Spartan vs Samurai. Who would win?         Reply with quote

Katie Neal wrote:


the samurai had decent armour, leather, metal chain and wood
WOOD???? I dont think so.
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Eric S




Location: new orleans
Joined: 22 Nov 2009
Reading list: 8 books

Posts: 805

PostPosted: Thu 14 Jul, 2011 3:00 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Quote:
Another term for the complete japanese armor is takenishi, or armor that needs no shield.
I have never read this term used in any book on samurai armor, the only place I have seen it is in forum debates.





Quote:
its also worth remembering that despite japanese craftsmanship. they never seem to hav gotten the idea to rivet their kusari armour links closed to make them stronger
WRONG!!



Quote:
3 a lack of artillery (they did have traction trebuchets, which are oversized seasaws.
WRONG


http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Samurai_cannons


Quote:
4. they never used axes or maces in battle for some very wierd reason..
WRONG and WRONG




View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Luke Zechman




Location: Lock Haven Pennsylvania
Joined: 18 Jan 2009

Posts: 278

PostPosted: Thu 14 Jul, 2011 7:02 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I am no expert so bare with me. As I understand it a shield was standard equipment universally for thousands of years. Why? Because it was not only a useful defense, but could also be used offensively, and it offered protection from being cut/pierced, but also allowed it's user to avoid blunt trauma. The Romans recognized the shields importance in battle, and thus deployed pilum to make their opponents shield useless. Kind of hard to use a shield that has one or more pilum protruding from it. It is my understanding that combat without a shield ( in Europe) was not common until full sets of plate armor had been donned. Were two handed swords/weapons used much before good plate mail had been worn (and I don't mean obscure example, but commonly)? The Japanese armor must have offered great protection against many types of attacks, and the name that they had given this armor reflects that. I do not see the lack of a shield to be a huge disadvantage to the samurai for this reason. He is better suited for one on one combat, and may have the advantage. lets not forget also that samurai used bow and arrow as well.
Now as far as defending the Spartan goes... I think it would be a mistake to underestimate the Spartans equipment. Bronze is a very tough metal, and when sharpened can hold a keener edge than ferrous metals. It may not be as durable, but capable of being sharper. I sure hope that no one out there believes that a katana would be able to slice through a bronze cuirass with ease. Likewise a Greek helmet is no slouch, and an aspis offers a good amount of body protection. Use of a shield is often more about the angle you present to your opponent, and less about how much area it covers in the first place. It is armor that you can delegate to areas that it is needed. Additionally the shield can allow its user to disguise his posture and thus may aid in offensive attempts.
The other thing that I will mention is that it all depends on the individual warrior. When you place a bet on a fighter in mixed martial arts arena, you would be wise to know about the skills of that person. If we are talking about the average samurai, versus the average spartan, then I will have to chose the samurai. For me it all comes down to the training of each. The one trained to be able to fight alone if needed would most likely prevail more times then not. This is just my humble opinion. This sort of debate will never produce an answer, but it sure is fun to think about. Thanks.
View user's profile Send private message
Eric S




Location: new orleans
Joined: 22 Nov 2009
Reading list: 8 books

Posts: 805

PostPosted: Thu 14 Jul, 2011 9:19 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Luke Zechman wrote:
The Japanese armor must have offered great protection against many types of attacks, and the name that they had given this armor reflects that. I do not see the lack of a shield to be a huge disadvantage to the samurai for this reason. He is better suited for one on one combat, and may have the advantage. lets not forget also that samurai used bow and arrow as well.
The early samurai did know of and use shields but they are just not generally recognized as such. Instead of hand held shields the samurai wore their shields on their shoulders, these shields called "sode" were loosely attached with cords and could be swiveled to protect the part of their body that needed protection. Since the major weapon that was being defended against was the arrow this type of shield was the type that worked for them, if a samurai encountered a sword it would usually have been on horse back which meant that one hand would have to be free at all times while they were using their own sword so a hand held shield would no have been much use to an early horse mounted samurai. As samurai warfare changed in the 1500s and firearms and spears became the weapons of choice hand held shields again would have been of little use and the sode became smaller and were no longer used as a protection against arrows, sode were no longer able to swivel and were firmly attached to the armor.

A shield is a shield whether worn on the arm, back, shoulder or propped up on the ground.

Here is a quote from a book by Jonathan Clements, A Brief History of the Samurai Page 24
http://books.google.com/books?id=gyqN0PRuoeUC...amp;f=true

Quote:
With the need to keep both hands free for using a bow, no shield was possible. Instead Japanese warriors began to favour large, shield-like attachments that formed square pads attached to their shoulders.




View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
William P




Location: Sydney, Australia
Joined: 11 Jul 2010

Posts: 1,523

PostPosted: Thu 14 Jul, 2011 10:27 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Eric S wrote:
Quote:
Another term for the complete japanese armor is takenishi, or armor that needs no shield.
I have never read this term used in any book on samurai armor, the only place I have seen it is in forum debates.





Quote:
its also worth remembering that despite japanese craftsmanship. they never seem to hav gotten the idea to rivet their kusari armour links closed to make them stronger
WRONG!!



Quote:
3 a lack of artillery (they did have traction trebuchets, which are oversized seasaws.
WRONG


http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Samurai_cannons


Quote:
4. they never used axes or maces in battle for some very wierd reason..
WRONG and WRONG






most of those cannons look largely like western cannons borrowed for use during the edo period. which doesnt say much about the use of artillery in the sengoku and invasions of korea
(note that during the invasions they largely if they used any used captured korean cannons manned by korean captives, so i dunno that doesnt say much about japanese cannoneering. it suggests that it wasnt exactly common knowledge to them during that time).

though the refernces to nobunagas breech loaders however is VERY interesting. even though theyre not exactly uniquely japanese designs but bseem like the teppo to be based off portuguese designs,

though the use of improvised wooden cannons from my understanding was recorded here and there.it still doesnt show that there was a widespread concerted effort to develop gunpowder cannons especially compared with the eagerness with which they adopted the arquebus.

(i know it looks like im moving the goalposts a bit but thats probably because i overgeneralised the statement in the first place. my bad. )

its also been noted that according to stephan turnbull the mongols used iron cased exploding balls (thrown by traction trebuchet) against the japanese, the japanese also used exploding bombsm but they only ever made these out of clay with iron fragments embedded within it. this may have been due to that reletive iron scarcity everyone seems to talk about. which meant that while they could make arrowheads out of it they couldnt spend vast quantities making iron cased trebuchet ammo.

as for the riveted armour. well im pleasently surprised to be wrong sort of
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mail_(armour)#Ma...9_in_Japan

Quote:
Butted or twisted kusari made up the majority of kusari links used by the Japanese. Links were either butted together meaning that the ends touched each other and were not riveted, or the kusari was constructed with links that consisted of two or more turns[14] similar to the modern split ring commonly used on keychains. The rings were lacquered black to prevent rusting, and were always stitched onto a backing of cloth or leather. The kusari was sometimes concealed entirely between layers of cloth.[15]




though im suspecting that in real life that axe was ABIT smaller than in the icture because normal daneaxes and halberds had fairly thin blades, that looks like an oversized woodschaopping axe and FAR too heavy to be used in actual combat. especially sonsiering the axehead is drawn to be far bigger than his head

that tetsubo (i excluded it from my listing because i wasnt sure if it was ACTUALLY used in battle with any sort of frequency) on the other hand looks more reasonable. especially that last one handed version.

that said, these weapons if used were of a great minority. to contrast, in europe. the two most commonly associated hand weapons of that era are the sword. and the morning star for knights, and the axe for the vikings. and im talking about popular culture perception

in contrast, japan in popular culture is known primarily for the sword, then the various staff weapons. *prmarily okinawan*

the point i was making is that in alot of ways. the japanese are very anomolous to the ways of fighting in india, china the middle east, byzantium and europe. which all share various common aspects, and a general trend of common design ideas

but for example, noone really has an answer to the katana/ tachi as the main weapon of the mounted warrior, the closest would be the turkish sabres used by the mounted elite. but none of them are 2 handed.
no other cultre as far as i know developed the 2 handed sabre as the primary sidearm of the warrior.

no oher clture EVER has an answer to something like the design of the yumi either to quote another example.
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Eric S




Location: new orleans
Joined: 22 Nov 2009
Reading list: 8 books

Posts: 805

PostPosted: Fri 15 Jul, 2011 1:19 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

William P wrote:


as for the riveted armour. well im pleasently surprised to be wrong sort of
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mail_(armour)#Ma...9_in_Japan

Quote:
Butted or twisted kusari made up the majority of kusari links used by the Japanese. Links were either butted together meaning that the ends touched each other and were not riveted, or the kusari was constructed with links that consisted of two or more turns[14] similar to the modern split ring commonly used on keychains. The rings were lacquered black to prevent rusting, and were always stitched onto a backing of cloth or leather. The kusari was sometimes concealed entirely between layers of cloth.[15]






As for artillery, if you had said the the samurai under utilized artillery you many have been right but they did use artillery to some extent.

You left out this part on kusari also from the same wiki article.

Quote:
Riveted kusari was known and used in Japan. In the book Japanese Arms & Armor Introduction By Robinson, H Russell NA on page 58 there is a picture of Japanese riveted kusari,[12] and according to this translated reference from Sakakibara Kozan's 1800 book, The Manufacture of Armour and Helmets in Sixteenth Century Japan, the Japanese not only knew of and used riveted kusari they manufactured it as well.
karakuri-namban (riveted namban), with stout links each closed by a rivet. Its invention is credited to Fukushima Dembei Kunitaka, pupil, of Hojo Awa no Kami Ujifusa, but it is also said to be derived directly from foreign models. It is heavy because the links are tinned (biakuro-nagashi) and these are also sharp edged because they are punched out of iron plate.[13]


The Japanese made and used a wide variety of kusari, most samurai kusari we see today was made for personal defense against swords but they did have the capacity and knowledge to make riveted kusari.
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website


Display posts from previous:   
Forum Index > Off-topic Talk > Spartan vs Samurai. Who would win?
Page 6 of 8 Reply to topic
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next All times are GMT - 8 Hours

View previous topic :: View next topic
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum






All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum