[Bill Tsafa]

[Lafayette C Curtis]

[Jean-Carle Hudon]

Where is the match taking place and who is appointing the judges?..... That could contribute as much to the outcome as whatever else has been mentionned so far, and if there are no judges, or witnesses, then we are left with the age old question as to whether a tree that falls in the forest makes any noise.... I am of the view that equipment doesn't win fights, unless there are technical inequalities ( don't bring a knife to a gun fight).... If we are going on pure sci-fi emotion, my money is on the spartan, they fought athenians and persians, samourais only defeated other samourais.

[Gene Green]

[Sam Gordon Campbell]

Samurai? THIS IS SPARTAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!1!

Sorry, just had to do it. Also I'd like to believe that a Spartan would win, even if they did breed themselves out of existence.

[Bill Tsafa]

lol, that was funny Sam.

Gene, you are right about the Romans almost loosing that battle. I also mentioned that in one of my earlier posts.

[Gary Teuscher]

I think anytime we draw comparisons to Rome vs Hellenistic armies, and then use this as a comparison to Spartan armies we have to be real careful.

There was a huge difference between Spartan and Macedonian armies, and even a decent difference between Alexandrian Macedonian armies and Hellenisitc ones.

The Sparatan Hoplite was the defense and offense of an army composed almost exclusively of Hoplites. The Macedonian army was a combined force army really better at these tactics than any at least until late Roman times, and then I'd still say the Macedonian one was better at what it did. The later Hellenisitic armies were similar to those of Macedon but relied more and more as time went by on the Phalanx - the Hypaspists became elite pikemen as opposed to an elite unit guarding the pikemen's flank (we are not 100% clear on this but to the best that can be ascertained this was their function, but their armnanment is a bit up i the air - generally thought to be shorter spears). There was less use of missile troops in hellenistic ones, and the cavalry in most Hellenisitc armies was reduced in comparison to the amount of Pikemen.

Why was this done - not really sure. Best guess is either economic issues (Companion cavalry were expensive to maintain), or perhaps that the armies were more tailor made to fighting other Hellenisitc armies, all push of pike with little reliance on combned arms. Perhaps a bit of both of these reasons.

But the big thing to rememeber with any Roman comparison - the Pikemen the Romans fought were not designed to be the battle winners. Pikemen don't pursue well, particularily over rough ground - as the Hellenistic armies found out which resulted in their defeat on a few occasions where they had beat the Roman forces in the initial push and lost the battle when they became disorgaized in pursuit.

Bith Pikemen and Legionairre lose formation to a point in rough ground - but the support of other rows of pikemen and thereby a solid formation is crucial to pikemen. With sword armed infantry it is not as important.

Roamn beating Hellenistic armies is not IMO the superiority of the Legionairre over the pikemen - as mentioned, Pyrrhus showed that he could defeat the Roman armies on a regular basis.

Also, a spartan hoplite is more similar to a roman legionairre than a Hellenistic pikeman. They are actually somewhere in the middle, better at close combat than a pikeman, better in formation then a legionairre, but not as good in formation as a Pikeman or as good in close as a legionairre. This though is strictly based on how they were armed and fought - With a Spartan being an elite trained type they were better due to this as well, could probably fight one on one as well as a legionairre, and in formation could probably take on a oike formation of the later Hellenistic states. At least their morlae would give them good staying power against either.

I think the Eartern Martial Art thing is of course somewhat myth. Eastern martial arts (at least the unarmed ones) have survived well in our current society, not as much of the western ones. Boxing and wresting are forms of western martial arts, but clearly tournament forms for the most part, making them look ineffecutual to a point as their is not a true wester non-tournament self defense form.

Reminds me when my brother told me a few weeks ago he was enrolling his son in the martial arts. I asked which one - Boxing, wrrestling, or a form of Karate?

The hypothetical question though is pretty impossible to answer. We have to remember Spartans and Samurai were men just like us. Well trained, different mentality, but still men. In an athletic event, I'd take a 21st century athlete any day over one of these supermen. The athlete with better nutrition and a smarter approach to training would win out the majority of time, depending on tyype of event of course as well.

But whil the one on one would be almost impossible to answer, in an open battlefield I'd go with a Japanese army from the Samurai period over the Spartans, due to combined arms. Holding a narrow pass like Thermopylae in a do or die situation, give me the Spartans of course, with Leonidas!

[David Black Mastro]

[David Black Mastro]

[Bennison N]

Is it possible to get a reference for where you heard that Thai Martial Arts influenced those used by Samurai? I'd like to research that a bit further.

Also... No Greeks ever invaded China, Korea or Thailand. At least not that long ago...

In terms of how much Alexander and his Macedonian War Machine influenced the martial traditions of the defeated cultures... I have had some personal experience with ancient Martial Art styles that fall into the area of Alexander's conquered empire, and I don't really see how Pankration could have influenced their development. The first I can think of is Varsesh-e Pahlavani, which is a Persian (Iranian) style which existed in those times, and possibly before, and which doesn't resemble what I know of Pankration at all. The next one I have encountered on my travels is Kalaripayattu, from India, with a creation date said to be far, far before Alexander... or even Phillip... or even Leonidas. This again does not resemble Pankration at all. In fact, Kalaripayattu is likely to be a source of tremendous influence over Shaolin Temple Martial Arts, which, despite popular belief, was not the original Chinese Martial Art.

Moving back to Macedonian influence, I agree that Nepalese Khukri resemble the Kopis and Falcata, suggesting some influence of the Macedonians onto the Nepalese of the day, but the use of these weapons isn't very similar, as Khukri aren't used by mounted forces, and Falcata were Macedonian Cavalry swords.

Also, Western Boxing has perhaps the most effective solo training routines ever developed for unarmed fighting. Boxing techniques include some of the hardest punches possible for the human body to perform. If you want to get fit quickly, train in boxing. I also know that it was very popular during Roman times, preferred to Wrestling by many Romans, as wrestling was seen as a pastime more for Greeks, whom were considered by Roman Romans, it appears, as the decadent descendants of once-great ancestors. So many died in impromptu boxing matches (both organised matches and on the streets) that it was banned towards the end of the 4th century AD throughout the empire. Even previous to that, boxing matches involving the use of "mailed fists" known as Caestus were popular, and these were banned in the 1st century AD due, again, to high body counts. It's not my favourite or anything, but Western Boxing is very cool...

Tae Kwon Pup and Hwarang Do are examples of Korean styles that predate the Japanese Occupation, and were the basis for Tae Kwon Do and Tang Soo Do. These schools were not recognised or allowed during the time of the "Greater East Asia Co-prosperity Sphere", which was a time when Taiwanese and Korean people were forced to even adopt Japanese names and speak 日本語... and therefore had to adapt to continue existence. The Japanese Schools of Kempo and Karate merely influenced the adoption of certain techniques for appearance, the grading systems, breaking exercises and the use of coloured belts for rank.

It's also interesting to note that the word "Kempo" in Kanji is pronounced "Chuan Fa" in Chinese. "Chuan Fa", which means "Fist Method" (a translation easier to understand), was the original name of Bodhidharma's exercises for Song Shan (Shaolin) Monks to stave off the negative effects of immobile meditation and protect the temple. So it appears that it was also adopted from Chinese Martial Arts. Actually... Shorinji Kempo in Kanji is Shaolin Si Chuan Fa in Hanzi.

Even so, it seems that not enough Greeks were Pankrationists to really make much difference to this discussion. What use is the one-finger-bent submission on a battlefield anyway? And in a battle, both Hoplites and Bushi use weapons and armour. Weapons and armour beat Pankration and Karate in my book... Because you can't use an armbar if you cut off the arm... And who wants to try kicking a sword, right?

[David Black Mastro]

[Gary Teuscher]

[David Black Mastro]

[Gary Teuscher]

[David Black Mastro]

[Gary Teuscher]

[Gabriel Lebec]

Gary, David, let's take a cue from the "Ko" rule of the game Go, and let the back-and-forth die down a bit. This thread is wandering a little off-topic and the frequency of "you" statements is getting a bit high.

Thank you for keeping the discussion engaging yet civil so far. Let's please keep it that way, and if you would like to continue addressing the topic of "sport" vs "combat" traditions, do so in another thread.

-Gabriel L.

[Bill Tsafa]

I started a new thread so we can further discus "sport vs combat fighting" and at the same time keep "spartan vs samurai" on topic.

[Matthew D G]

A very close match up but my money is on the spartan.

[Gary Teuscher]

First Dave, I'd like to make clear what my point was initially when the debate started. We could go on and on about Roman Legionairres and antyhting else, but I'd like to get back to the specific issue.

In response to a few posts that thought a samurai would have an advantage against a Spartan due to the Samurai's knowledge of the Martial arts, I pointed out that there were western combat martial arts as well. Wrestling and boxing are decendants of these.

I made a point that it is not uncommon for many (by many I am speaking of many with little knowledge of martial arts in general) to give the Eastern Martial arts a mystique that is not warranted. This IMO is due more to a lack of knowledge of western martial arts, and that the mainstream ones we have now are designed to be used in very controlled bouts, trying to limit injury.

I think you made the assumption that I was downgrading or had little respect for western martial arts, which was clearly not my point, I think your misunderstanding of my point led to some of the debate.

Now as far as whether combat sports make a good real fighter - Of course they do! Any martial training is better than none. Of course a wrestler or a boxer has an advantage over an unskilled opponent. There seems to be some statements on the combat training thread to where if someone knows boxing, and they are a better fighter than one who knows nothing, than Combat sports must be effective methods of training. Well that's a no-brainer.

My point was and still is that if someone trains striclty tournament style, they will be lacking in both attacking and defending things which are outlawed in their sport.

Now when you compare a style of martial arts taught with an unresisting opponent but designed to teach self defense, i.e. no holds barred you say they will not do well in true combat against someone taught "tournament style" for lack of a better word. I fully agree.

Tournament type fighting is of course important to learn many things about combat you cannot learn from fighting an unresisting opponent.

It's like the old pressure point move - "See, all I have to do is grab you here, here and here, and I win" - but of course to be able to do that particular move against a resisting opponent is rather impossible.

There are things however that are these type of moves that can work against a resisting opponent. There was a self defense move I learned to get out of a headlock - put your hand under neaththe nose of who has you in the headlock and pull the head back. It's hard to resist. Tried this in wresting practice, worked well but my coach told me I could not do it in the ring. Got into a scrap a few years later, tried it and the other person was resisting it pretty well, they were more focused, had more adrenalin going or something. I changed my grip to the eyes, and it worked well. This would not be allowed in MMA to my knowledge, similar to eye gouging. It also works best of the two parties are at least somewhat close in strength.

Take a boxer - most fights, if one party desires and are somewhat equally matched will wind up at least some of the tme in a grapple, barring the one punch and done. A boxer who has no knowledge of wrestling, Judo or some other grappling art will get eaten up by a skilled wrestler. Thats my whole point - Boxing is striking, no real grappling, wrestling is grappling, no real striking.

While a trained boxer can hit hard, he can only do well in his particular specialty. That is why I used the term "dumbed down"

A good MMA fighter an handle both striking and grappling. They may be better at one, but the understand and can at least defend against the other. This is why I also said MMA has brought some more respect back into western Martial arts.

Whether people get injured or not in a combat sport is somewhat irrelevant. The point is is that if they learn say boxing only, and fight a skilled opponent with a broader skill level like MMA, they will struggle as long as both are roughly evenly matched in size, athletesism, and skill in their particualr form.

This idea also is why one needs to learn technigues that might be illegal in ones combat sport to be most effective in a real fight . Both so they can anticipate and defend and use offensively.

Same goes for weapons use. I have never participated in SCA, but my understanding for safety reason there are not a whole lot of shield strikes you can use, nor can you intentionally bowl someone over using a shield. If an SCA fighter were not exposed to this and placed in a real fight with weapons, hopefully the learn to defend against things like this quickly, and they won't get to many second chances in real combat.

Unfortunately true training in this area would lead to too many deaths and injuries to make it effective for both hand to hand or weapons combat sports.

My guess is training done my knights and legionairres was not quite as restricted. After all, they are learning to defend their own life, not training for a fun sport or even just a means of making money. They learned to deal with real issues that may come about in combat, at least they did if they were trained well. I'm sure they still had some safeguards in effect though. The Spartans I am not sure of. From what I know many trainees died before they became Spartan Equals. This may have had something to do with the manpower shortage they started experiencing after the war with Athens.