Thread: So, 100 Samurai versus 100 Spartans...who wins?

This thread was swiped from Rotten Tomatoes, but I felt the need to pose the question here.

1) 100 samurai versus 100 Spartans. The samurai have their swords and traditional armor, along with bows. The Spartans have their spears, swords, and shields. Who wins?

2) 1 samurai versus 1 Spartan. The samurai has his swords and his traditional armor, the Spartan has his spear, his sword, and his shield. Who wins?

The giant enemy crab will win.

Jyuu stay on topic.

Um... Samurai and... Samurai?

The fact that Spartans don't have ranged weaponry is sort of a large disadvantage. Other than that, they might be a match in terms of pure physical prowess...

Originally Posted by HealBot

Jyuu stay on topic.

How do the noobs miss the giant "MODERATOR" tag under Jyuu's name?

But anyways, as to my vote...Samurai/Samurai. If the samurai didn't have the bows in the 100 battle, they'd lose. The Spartan formation is quite difficult to defeat, but using ranged weapons and attacking from the flank, the samurai would win. In the one-on-one fight, Spartans function well in groups, not alone. Samurai are trained for man-to-man battles, so they would have the advantage.

Another question: Miyamoto Musashi versus Achilles?

1)

Hoplites! Phalanx formation!

And bam. Dead Samurai.
2) Spartan Hoplites have been trained since children in the ways of war. Some could argue the same with Samurai. But Hoplites don't waste valuable time spent on training how to kill writing haiku.


Musashi would lose since there is no conceivable way that he would know of the HEEL.

Was there an actual historic Achilles? Or was he invented for the myth? Cuz I'm pretty sure he wouldn't be invincible in that case...

they would draw.
everyone will be lying midst a bloody field of corpses
and we'd clap at the show.

p.s. maybe he hears one of the dumb spartan soldiers yelling out 'AHAHHAHA YOU CAN'T KILL ACHILLES! HIS ANKLE IS THE ONLY WEAKNESS!'

but samurais were more awesome than spartans.
1. They existed much later so all their technology was more advanced, their armour would probably be stronger while allowing better mobility, their swords would be less likely to break in battle and be sharper and more balanced.
2. A volley of arrows is a lot more effective than a volley of spears.
3. Samurais apparently have armour and Spartans only have shields.
4. Spartans in training were encouraged to have homosexual affairs with the people who taught them; even on a spartans wedding night, the bride would often have her head shaved so that the groom would feel more familiar with the situation. So awesome factor -1
6. If you play any soul calibur mitsurugi is a much better character than Sophitia.
7. Hoplites aren't Spartans. No Phalanx formation.


to make the one-on-one fight between spartans and samurais fair it would have to be between 2 immortals. So it should be Achilles vs. Manji from Blade of the Immortal.

A very interesting discussion.
Let's examine the facts.

Spartans have been trained to become soldiers since they were little kiddies. At about the age of 7 or so, they were taken away from their parents to train and live on their own in very harsh conditions. They were supposed to have no fear of dying. Quite the contrary, dying during battle is the best thing that could happen to them.

Samurai however are more "free", in the sense that they are not immediatly trained to become killing machines from the moment they were born. This could be a crucial difference between them and the Spartans. Also remember that Samurai warriors are more independent. They have full allegiance to their master, but he does not have a team-spirit to work together in tight discipline with his comrades.

Now, on the technical side, it's very difficult to make out who has the advantage. A Spartan spear and a heavy shield would be quite difficult to use against a reasonably faster Samurai. If he's capable of doing so, the Samurai could possibly cut the spear of the Spartan, forcing him to use his short sword, which would clearly give the Samurai the advantage in close-ranged combat, since a katana is far better to handle. However, what good would a katana have against a hoplite shield or a strong bronze armor?

In phalanx formation, the Spartans could completly obliterate the random scatterings of Samurai warriors. The Samurai would have great difficult getting close to individual Spartans, since his path is blocked by many spears and tall, strong shields.

In one-on-one combat, the outcome *could* be different. A Samurai will most likely be faster and deadlier than a "clumsy" Spartan swinging around his spear and shield. However, one good blow from that spear could serioursly damage the Samurai. All in all, the Samurai has the best chances. He has to quickly get to a blind spot of the Spartan and strike from there.

PS: Achilles wins. Musashi would not know the heel is his weak spot. It would be a long and tiresome fight though, seeing how Musashi is fast and very clever. Musashi eventually killing Achilles is possible, simply because Musashi could probably last longer than Achiles and *eventually* find the weak spot in the heel after trying to attack all the rest of the body.

PPS: To Jamie's post-
1) Samurai also had a very close bond with their masters, very similar to the Spartan's.
2) Spartans have a helmet and cuirass.
3) Spartans used Phalanx. Hoplite is a general term for heavily armed Greek soldier.