spartan or samurai

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.

Edited by Omnipotence - 11-Sep-2006 at 20:28

What silly question is this.A Spartan warrior would smash a samurai into small pieces.

Originally posted by Dampier 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.

Originally posted by Greek Hoplite Originally posted by Dampier 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.     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

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

probably get a frozen spartan child popsicle lol

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

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.

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.

Edited by Slick - 05-Feb-2007 at 23:55

Which is an awesome right don't you think?