spartan or samurai
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: All Empires Community
Forum Name: Historical Amusement
Forum Discription: For role playing and alternative history discussions.
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=14665
Printed Date: 14-May-2024 at 02:19
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: spartan or samurai
Posted By: white knight
Subject: spartan or samurai
Date Posted: 11-Sep-2006 at 10:32
|
For you guys which is the most admirable "never surrender attitude" during battle?: -A spartan, who when cornered or surrounded by his enemies would fight to the death than surrender. -A samurai, who when cornered or surrounded by his enemies would commit "harakiri" or ritual suicide than surrender.
|
Replies:
Posted By: Omnipotence
Date Posted: 11-Sep-2006 at 13:34
|
That's just a bunch of stereotypes. Seriously though, samurais existed to almost the industrial revolution. There are different attitudes during the existence of the samurai. Not a fair comparison.
btw, that is what i would call a biased question. You have already implemented a view of whose way was better before you let the questioner respond. That's how political polls are done.
|
Posted By: Paul
Date Posted: 11-Sep-2006 at 14:15
|
The Samurai were mostly civil servants. The Spartans surrendered at Sphacteria. ------------- Light blue touch paper and stand well back http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk - http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk - http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk |
Posted By: Greek Hoplite
Date Posted: 13-Sep-2006 at 04:16
|
What silly question is this.A Spartan warrior would smash a samurai into small pieces. ------------- My blog http://mankap.blogspot.com/ |
Posted By: Dampier
Date Posted: 13-Sep-2006 at 11:19
No he wouldnt, the Samurai were far better horsemen and used more bows. The Spartans had a massive light infantry disfunction. Also one on one the Spartan loses his main advantage- that of fighting inb advantage.
Also the question wasnt fighting but attitudes to death and as correctly pointed out both are untrue stereotypes. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Greek Hoplite
Date Posted: 13-Sep-2006 at 13:45
In close combat samurai has not got any luck against a Spartan, i guess that many hear the word samurai and say" ouaou what warriors!"The truth is that samurai were not so brave as many present them ------------- My blog http://mankap.blogspot.com/ |
Posted By: Omnipotence
Date Posted: 13-Sep-2006 at 17:23
| ^read the topic before you get your nationalism fueled up. It's which attitude is better, not who would win. |
Posted By: Dampier
Date Posted: 15-Sep-2006 at 10:40
As has been pointed out you are still barkign up the wrong tree.
To continue the Spartan vs Samurai in a fight I'd have to say its not a matter of bravery. Its a matter of fighting styles and abilities. A samurai has a horse, is an excellent archer and generally a very good swordsman. Spanrtans however are so good because of their constant training for fighting in formations and their good discipline. Their swordsmanship is average though they are good with spears. Hence any battke begins with the Samurai circling on his horse (or standing still) and shooting arrows. Should these not kill the Spartan (unlikely) then he will close, the Spartan then has one chance to hit with his spear after which the samurais long sword (good on horseback) can come into its own against his small one. Using his horse and charging its pretty close to guaranteed he will kill/knock out/panic the spartan. -------------
|
Posted By: Batu
Date Posted: 16-Sep-2006 at 02:28
|
fightenening to death is better.by the way,spartan has no chance against samurais.
------------- A wizard is never late,nor he is early he arrives exactly when he means to :) ( Gandalf the White in the Third Age of History Empire Of Istari ) |
Posted By: spartacus-033
Date Posted: 02-Oct-2006 at 18:57
|
In refence to the fight between them, I dont think anyone can really say for sure who would win. Yes the samurai were very skilled horseman and archers, yes they were geart swordsman. The spartans were masters of infantry combat and I dont think there has ever been a heavy infantry that were as effective as them since, and they where more than "average" swordsman. They trained every day of their lives since the time they could stand. They were as good with short swords as a samurai was with a Katana. A samurai's honor would come into play in this. When he saw he faced a single oponet he would dismount his horse and toss the bow. It would be the Spartan, not the samurai who would be at a disadvantage is close combat. His greatest strength at the start would be his 9 foot spear. Because of the Bronze sheild and such the spartan would be forced to remain on the defensive. A spartan has never faced anything like a samurai and a samurai has never faced anything like a spartan before. The winner would be decide by who could adapt to the other's fighting style first not by skill. which could take some time to do because both were very fanatical and stubborn. They simply refused to change they're tactics ------------- sic vis pacem para bebellum (if you want peace prepare for war) |
Posted By: Spartakus
Date Posted: 05-Oct-2006 at 07:52
|
The can be considered both really good.Samurais had just better swords and bows.In training they were equally good ,as well as in the skill of their weapons.
Spartans sent their kids naked in the cold winter to hunt animals,in order to strengthen them,for God's shake! ------------- "There are worse crimes than burning books. One of them is not reading them. " --- Joseph Alexandrovitch Brodsky, 1991, Russian-American poet, b. St. Petersburg and exiled 1972 (1940-1996) |
Posted By: Ponce de Leon
Date Posted: 12-Oct-2006 at 17:56
|
probably get a frozen spartan child popsicle lol ------------- |
Posted By: Brainstorm
Date Posted: 13-Oct-2006 at 10:41
Well,i guess some karate skills wouldnt help much against a marching phalanx 
|
Posted By: Aster Thrax Eupator
Date Posted: 07-Nov-2006 at 04:47
|
I agree- A Spartan would be more than a match for a Samurai when he is in formation, but when on his own? The Samurai would beat the fellow to a pulp! I generally think that a Samurai must have been more advanced ------------- |
Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 28-Dec-2006 at 18:52
|
History had proved, ever since the ancient days, that organization, formation, battle tactics, mobility, and team work were the huge factor that shaped the winners. Look at Roman soldiers, or Alexander’s army. Even today, cooperation between one another is the key to success... not only in military, but in business, academics, sports, etc.
------------- http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi"> 
Join us. |
Posted By: Athanasios
Date Posted: 02-Feb-2007 at 12:37
|
Spartan warriors used to formate phallanx, efficient against foot soldiers armed with short spears and swordsmen. But against to light cavalry armed with bows...no chance. Phallanx formation could be easily broken in an unflatterned battlefield (like kynos kefalae,Macedonians VS Romans were the phallanx formation was used by the Greeks) even by swordsmen... But spartans didn't have the same tactics like those of Persian wars through their history. They developed their army to the standarts of the classical era , to compete successfully against their Athenian foes. They also created naval force. The Spartans who served in the navy were also "Spartan warriors". Could we compare those Spartan warriors ( i mean the navy ones) with samurais? Obviously not.
Both ( samurai and Spartans) were born and raised as warriors with the pure meaning of the word. Maybe they fought in different tactics so the efficient of Samurais against Spartans in a hypothetical battlefield is not a good comparison. In my opinion a unique samurai without his armour was equal to a Spartan warrior without his armour too. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 02-Feb-2007 at 13:07
|
While a fight to the death between the two is certainly entertaining, the original question is fundamentaly flawed in that Samurai rarely committed ritual suicide on the field of battle. The ritual suicide was offered as a means for captured samurai to avoid the shame of an execution, and maintain their honour.
------------- |
Posted By: Slick
Date Posted: 05-Feb-2007 at 23:52
|
I voted for the samurai. My reasoning is thus- Samurai committed hari-kiri not for any strange ritual reason. They killed themselves only when they figured that fighting any longer would be pointless. What is the purpose of fighting to the death if you are absolutely certain that you're going to lose and your conquerors will defeat you decisively? Fighting to the death if you're going to lose anyways causes meaningless blood to be spilled. The samurai recognized this, and that is why they comitted hari-kiri. This is more honorable than uselessly continuing to fight for a definite losing causing, in my opinion. Not all samurai committed hari-kiri either. If there was a chance that a samurai could survive and keep on fighting, as well as bag a victory, they did. Against the Rokkaku at Chokoji, Shibata Katsuie led a desperate sally out of his castle because he thought there was still a chance, however slim, of victory. As he believed, Katsuie was victorious. Similarly, at the Battle of Tennoji during the Osaka Summer Campaign, Sanada Yukimura fought to the death, mainly because at the time his army was winning, so Yukimura probably thought there was still a chance of victory... ------------- "Dai Ichi Dai Man Dai Kichi" |
Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 07-Feb-2007 at 00:22
|
Samurai were honorable soldiers, but it should be noted that they are still men. Many were corrupted or dishonored, especially as Japan began to modernized. No longer were samurai changed the tide of war, the machineguns did. Their debt was piling, and eventually... the only difference between samurai and commoners is the fact that samurai still had the right to carry swords. ------------- http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi">
Join us. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 07-Feb-2007 at 00:31
|
Which is an awesome right don't you think?
------------- |
Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 07-Feb-2007 at 00:45
Sure... what would be awesome? ------------- http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi">
Join us. |
Posted By: white knight
Date Posted: 07-May-2007 at 09:16
|
Well, my view on the spartan vs samurai is this: skills: bushido of samurai vs pankration of spartans: draw, equally skilled
brains: sun zu brain vs alexander's brain, for their generals: draw or indecisive
protection:lamellar armor for the samurai vs mycenaean armor and aspis, : spartan wins
weapons: katana, naginata, vs Makhaira,xiphos, javelin, a macedonian long spear(maybe): samurai wins for superior steel.
in the battlefield: human wave for the samurai vs spartan phalanx, spartan tag team: spartan wins
calvary: samurai horse archers vs greek calvary: samurai wins
total: draw.
|
Posted By: olvios
Date Posted: 07-May-2007 at 10:14
I like both. planet earth s warrior archetypes!
------------- http://www.hoplites.net/ |
Posted By: zeno
Date Posted: 07-May-2007 at 11:44
|
basically which do you like more...
i prefer the samurai because of the skilled moves ------------- 
|
Posted By: olvios
Date Posted: 07-May-2007 at 12:45
|
Samurai for me is a cooler lone wolf type warrior with more all around weapons and uses. Spartan is group-based so i d go with samurai in this one. ------------- http://www.hoplites.net/ |
Posted By: Romantic Envy
Date Posted: 13-May-2007 at 11:04
|
The first thing that comes to mind is that fighting to the death is just suicide by another's hands... Meh, it's hard for me to choose really. ------------- "History, despite its wrenching pain, cannot be unlived, but if faced with courage, need not be lived again." ~ Maya Angelou |
Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 13-May-2007 at 21:51
If we are talking about weapons, then samurai have unfair advantage since samurai warriors endured due to its geographical isolation from other civilizations while Spartans had to endure the foreign threats, such as Persians, Romans, Turks, etc... I think Spartans elite warriors died off by the end of the bronze age.
It's like saying SEAL soldiers are more honorable and efficient compared to soldiers in gundpowder age.  ------------- http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi">
Join us. |
Posted By: olvios
Date Posted: 14-May-2007 at 04:09
|
Yeah i just use to like the lone warrior going on duels when i read mushashi ,spartans are different and i see them as an elite group but the samurai image for me is an elite individual. .tamble();
------------- http://www.hoplites.net/ |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 14-May-2007 at 04:38
|
They don't compare. Each would be disadvantaged in the other's environment. The Samurai were trained to be individually formidable and specialized in one-on-one and small unit combat. The Spartans were trained to each be an integral part of a very efficient killing machine. Their individual maneuvers were coordinated with the warrior next to them, behind them and in front of them. As a unit, arrows had little effect as their shields were designed to be held overhead and lock together to form an essentially impenetrable barrier. Like the samurai they were professional soldiers, their lives dedicated to war from childhood to death. They trained daily, lifelong. they also studied campaign strategy and small unit tactics. I'm speaking specifically of the Spartans, not all Greeks (Hellenes). Thermopolae was no accident. Such a dedicated professional army wasn't seen again until Philip of Macedon paid his soldiers to be full time soldiers, not farmers/raiders.
------------- |
Posted By: Batu
Date Posted: 16-May-2007 at 15:52
Hey Pekau,I am not sure Spartans fought with Turks.You wouldnt admire Spartans If they have fought Turks. Its the same for the SEALs.maybe I should open a poll about Jannisary vs SEALS,which is the best special forces.
------------- A wizard is never late,nor he is early he arrives exactly when he means to :) ( Gandalf the White in the Third Age of History Empire Of Istari ) |
Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 16-May-2007 at 18:29
Well, not when Sparta was at the height of military power.... but Greeks in general (Which includes Spartans) fought against the overwhelming Ottoman Turks. Ottoman Empire did invade Balkan regions.
As well, the Persians brought a lot of Turks when they invaded Greece twice.
Spartans vs. Jannisary is like Jannisary vs. SEALS? Seriously? I don't know how determined the Turks fight, but no matter how skilled you are... fighting against a semi-machinegun against a classical gunpowder weapon doesn't sound like a fair match to me. It's like one with a primitive club fighting against a heavily armored crusader.
I have to think about Spartans vs. Jannisary situation. It's kind of hard to compare since the two warriors are from entirely different age... but I think Spartans may have been more determined in general... what kind of training do Jannisaries get? ------------- http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi">
Join us. |
Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 16-May-2007 at 18:34
In general, samurai warriors prefer individual combats... but not all the case. Especially in Imjin War, many samurai warriors had to fight as a single army due to their desparate fight against the Koreans and Chinese forces...
------------- http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi">
Join us. |
Posted By: Justinian
Date Posted: 07-Aug-2007 at 17:34
|
Perhaps this has been addressed but, correct me if I'm wrong, didn't the spartans cease to exist around 1500 years before the rise of the samurai? In regards to attitute I would prefer the spartan to the samurai. It seems more honorable to me to fight till the last man taking as many men as you can versus killing yourself and denying that honor to the enemy. Its interesting how the samurai were rather similar in this regard to the romans. You lose a battle in the civil war and commit suicide versus being captured... interesting.------------- "War is a cowardly escape from the problems of peace."--Thomas Mann 
|
Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 05-Sep-2007 at 14:33
We all have different ideas and beliefs regarding the word, honor. ------------- http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi">
Join us. |
Posted By: Ulrich Wolff
Date Posted: 26-Sep-2007 at 18:28
|
"Samurai were honorable soldiers, but it should be noted that they are
still men. the only
difference Many were corrupted or dishonored, especially as Japan began
to modernized. No longer were samurai changed the tide of war, the
machineguns did. Their debt was piling, and eventually... between samurai and commoners is the fact that samurai still
had the right to carry swords."
Actually... The samurai's right to carry a weapon was taken away in the 1800's due to a samurai rebellion against their emperor for alienating the Japanese culture. I'm not certain when this law was revoked, but I know it was. Corruption is unavoidable, but don't forget there are good people out there. Read the story of the 47 Ronin. Edit : I forgot! To this day special agents in japan continue to practice ancient bushido for exercise, and psychological elements of the training. So, you could say that samurai are still used today, but differently. As for the poll. I'd have to say both have their reasons, and are equal practices, which have probably been used by both sides. And for the samurai vs. spartan argument. The samurai would cut them down with arrows, ride into their backs, and cut them down. The samurai would easily maneuver around their bronze shields and dispatch a spartan in one strike. I know because I practice kendo "Way of the sword." Kendo teaches a warrior to not use strength, or skill, but intelligence, control your enemy's emotions and you control his movements. |
Posted By: Crystall
Date Posted: 26-Sep-2007 at 18:49
|
Well you guys give the samuri an unfair advantage. He gets a HORSE, not to mention both bow/arrow and sword.
Take away the horse and the bow.. then we should talk about who wins.
|
Posted By: Ulrich Wolff
Date Posted: 26-Sep-2007 at 18:59
|
Samurai would. The spartan phalanx is not flexible, and as close combat fighters they are lacking compared to samurai.
Some one said "Spartans have steel armor therefor better then samurai wood armor" The Spartans didn't even know how to create steel. They used a cloth armor made out of layers of reinforced linen. |
Posted By: Knights
Date Posted: 26-Sep-2007 at 21:26
|
Yes Ulrich, you are right that the Spartans did not have or even know how to create steel armour. However, it is a complete understatement to say they only used cloth/linen armour. They had bronze cuirasses, leg greaves, helmets.etc. Does anyone know if they used iron at any stage?
------------- |
Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 26-Sep-2007 at 21:42
|
If the question was not flawed from the beginning, perhaps the result could be better. In my sense, there is nothing that can match a samurai, horse or not. You should also remember that while a spartan practiced with a spear and a sword, a samurai used tens of types of swords, bows, spears and pikes... ------------- |
Posted By: SuN.
Date Posted: 27-Sep-2007 at 08:35
|
A fact which nobody seems to have noticed is that while a spartan was trained as a very professional soldier, a samurai was trained both as a priest (meditator, spiritual pursuits) & a warrier. he was more knowledgeble, had a different level of mental strenth & training.
------------- God is not great. |
Posted By: Ulrich Wolff
Date Posted: 27-Sep-2007 at 15:17
|
"Yes Ulrich, you are right that the Spartans did not have or even know
how to create steel armour. However, it is a complete understatement to
say they only used cloth/linen armour. They had bronze cuirasses, leg greaves, helmets.etc. Does anyone know if they used iron at any stage? "
They used iron helmets at one time I believe. I'm fairly certain bronze cuirass was used by men of rank, but the greaves were standard for file men I believe. The thing with samurai is they study where to strike not just how to strike. I am aware of a kata that stabs a man through his right eye (to get around helmet protection) another to slice open the armpit severing vital arteries(where there is often little armor), the man would die in minutes. There are many more that go around armor, they practice these daily until it becomes as natural as walking. |
Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 27-Sep-2007 at 19:44
Take away the bow? Why? Spartans could have used the bows too!
I guess there is some truth about this unfairness. Spartans and samurai will have to use same type of bow.
And there's the sword issue too. Spartan weapons are quite outdated compared to Japanese sword. Samurai will be much better armed and equpied only because of different timeline.
And jeeze, take away the horse? Can you argue that Mongolians only had good fighters because they had horse? Adapting to environment is vital to survivor. If samurai can fight more effectively because they had horses and Spartans didn't... why would that be unfair? Does war have to be fair? NO, war's whole purpose is to win.
And guys, I just noticed that we got off topic for some time now. Question was who is the more admirable "never surrender attitude"? Not who was better fighter or whatever people are saying... It's the belief we are supposed to be arguing, not the battle formation, tactic, skill or whatever you guys are arguing in circles about.  ------------- http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi">
Join us. |
Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 27-Sep-2007 at 21:24
|
The swords of the samurai were crafted rather well. They would most likely be fast enough to cut through the natural openings in any phalanx or the sides that warriors leave open personally. I have a feeling that instead of this, a honest and unbiased discussion could be made perhaps? I'd have this one closed down then... ------------- |
Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 28-Sep-2007 at 05:05
|
It will be great if this was closed. First of all, the poll is completely screwed up (Anyone want to deny this?) We can't answer who was more admirable "never surrender attitude" thingy... both Spartans and samurai fought for their sense of honor and beauty of war... and asking people who never experienced battle, those that live in relative peace and order, to decide who was more admirable "never surrender attitude" is HYPOCRISY! ------------- http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi">
Join us. |
Posted By: SuN.
Date Posted: 28-Sep-2007 at 10:48
The poll is perfectly intellectual. By the above mentioned yardsticks, a lot of the matter on this forum may be out of place. ------------- God is not great. |
Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 28-Sep-2007 at 15:13
|
Are these options comparable?: samurai who rather kill himself than let others kill him. spartan who fights to the death. First of all, the Samurai (as mentioned previously here) chose to commit suicide only when disgraced not because he didn't want to take opponents down. The Spartan Hoplite would likewise be fighting to his death... but still for his life. The general build of this poll is wrong. If the question were: Who is a better warrior? The Spartan Hoplite The Samurai Then that would be an acceptable way of creating a poll. The poll creator has however originally risen the Spartan and lowered the Samurai in the original poll so the user can't have an opinion of his own. That's why all the persons having voted here for the Samurai show that it is an unfair poll centered on the Spartans and sure in it's victory. Plus, the option of multireplying is allowed which a decent poll should lack. For the sake of being right, this poll is wrong. I'd like to know how many times have the Spartan voters voted? 100? Two days ago, the poll was at 100 votes for the Samurai. The next day it was 50 votes past Samurai... Today it is nearly 150 for the Samurai again... If every person had voted once.. Well, wouldn't that be a wonder? ------------- |
Posted By: Yiannis
Date Posted: 28-Sep-2007 at 16:10
Not really, Greeks in general (Spartans did not use different weapons and armor than the other Greek heavy infantry hoplites) used bronze armor (steel was not invented at that time, it is a much later invention).
They used bronze breastplates and when they fought in warmer climates (Asia and Egypt) they developed the "linothorax" a breastplate that was consisted of several processed layers of linen that provided adequate protection and was not as warm as bronze. (plus it was cheaper)
  http://wildfiregames.com/0ad/page.php?p=1568 - http://wildfiregames.com/0ad/page.php?p=1568 ------------- The basis of a democratic state is liberty. Aristotle, Politics Those that can give up essential liberty to obtain a temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin |
Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 29-Sep-2007 at 04:26
Allow me to quote Rider's post to prove that you are totally wrong...
------------- http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi">
Join us. |
Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 29-Sep-2007 at 04:34
Once again, we are getting off topic.
 To end the argument though, I will have to say samurai will be superior in that sense. Samurai possessed iron and steel sword that is vastly superior to Spartan weapons. Samurai possessed shortsword while Japanese perferred longsword. Their armor is better armed than Spartans. Samurai could easily slice his way into Spartan formation after shower of arrows. Spartan shield may hold, but helmet will not hold. Plus, Spartans did not cover their legs. Samurai' superior archory skill to knock out the outermost formation, and flank the Spartans with fast agile longsword attack. Spartans will not survive this.
But this is an unfair thing to look at, as I have said before. Samurai are aeons ahead of Spartans' time. Spartans lived in Bronze Age, Samurai lived prodominately in iron age. Will be bother to argue whether SAS is better or British Expeditionary Force?
Seriously, lock this forum. We are going in circle nowhere to answer the question (White knight is the one to blame the most for distracting question and many others for staying off-topic.) This is not intelligent debate or historically amusing. This forum must die. ------------- http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi">
Join us. |
Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 29-Sep-2007 at 08:35
|
Hey hey... You are going too far. Lock this topic perhaps, but not this forum...
------------- |
Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 30-Sep-2007 at 03:39
Incorrect wording, my bad...  Of course, it's the topic, not the entire forum...------------- http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi">
Join us. |
Posted By: Piedmon_Sama
Date Posted: 12-Dec-2007 at 21:47
|
Inasfar as the elite soldiery of either nation goes, I admire the Spartan ethos more. While a Samurai was focused on his own honor, the Spartan code was all about brotherhood and comraderie with the man next to you. That said, I admire the medieval Japanese civilization much more than the Spartan one. When at their best, the Samurai Lords lived by the Confucian ideal of protecting the commoners, while the Spartans would literally kill their helots for sport. Not to mention I can never admire any society that kills off all "unfit" infants.Asking how the Spartans would match up to the Samurai in battle is no different than asking how a Samurai would perform against a rifleman. The technological gap is too huge for a fair contest to be possible.
|
Posted By: Ponce de Leon
Date Posted: 12-Dec-2007 at 21:49
| Not really. If I had to choose between a spartan or samurai....SPARTANS!!! PREPARE FOR GLORY!!! |
Posted By: Sun Tzu
Date Posted: 13-Dec-2007 at 12:33
But I think what he meant like their mental strength and inner warrior and right there, it would be a tossup.
The Reason why I chos Spartans though is because they died swinging, while the Samurai would take his own life (which to me is a coward's way out). ------------- Sun Tzu All warfare is based on deception - Sun Tzu |
Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 14-Dec-2007 at 00:44
If being massacred by the arrows is glory... then Spartans get all the glory they want. I rather be one of the samurai shooting arrows..
------------- http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi">
Join us. |
Posted By: Darius of Parsa
Date Posted: 14-Dec-2007 at 02:53
|
A Spartan-Samurai duel has nothing to do with what the topic is asking. It is asking what attitude is more admirable, not a battle between the two. ------------- What is the officer problem? |
Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 16-Dec-2007 at 05:13
If you look through the past posts, you will understand how some of us simply can't read or refuse to read the title. ------------- http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi">
Join us. |