Spartan fights Samurai. Who wins?

[Mr. Kobayashi]

Based on the show Deadliest Warrior, which I love despite the fact that it is absolutely ridiculous.

The Spartan is a full Spartiate, a veteran peer of Sparta's warrior class from the height of Sparta's power circa the 5th Century B.C. He has access to the xiphos short sword, spear, javelin and bronze hoplon shield. He wears a full set of armour - bronze helm, cuirass and greaves.

The Samurai is a veteran of the Sengoku Jidai, the Age of the Country at War, 1467–1573 A.D. He has access to the katana blade, naginata polearm, yami bow and the kanabo club. He wears a full set of lacquered samurai armour.

The battle takes place on even ground. Assume both have adequate motivation for the other's demise.

On the face of it, they are quite similar. Both are from warrior castes who look down on other elements of society. Both have a culture that revolves around warfare and the glory/honour of dying in battle. Both place great importance on their equipment - the Spartan was told to come back with his shield or upon it, and the Samurai called the katana his 'soul'.

The Spartan was in many ways the most fearsome soldier in all history, trained from infancy in war. However, the Samurai has access to weapons of folded steel he trains with every day. But who...is...deadlier?

FTR, in the show, the Spartan (narrowly) won.

[Alessan]

I'd give it to the Spartan. Their spears have greater reach, and the samurai wouldn't know how to handle his hoplon - shields being largely unknown in East Asia. Plus, based purely on my knowledge of popular culture, the samurai were more interested in acquitting themselves honorably, while the Greeks were more result-oriented, and weren't above using dirty tricks if the situation required it. Pragmatism beats honor any day of the week.

[Simplicio]

I thought the point of a hoplite was to fight in a phalanx. I don't think just one hoplite would be particularly formidable. Its pretty hard to stick someone with a seven foot spear unless your in some sort of formation.

And the Samuri has a thousand years of technological advancement to draw on. The hoplites were using bronze and iron, the samuri had steel swords.

The Spartan would be screwed.

[AClockworkMelon]

I voted for samurai before really considering the issue.

First of all the Spartan has that fucking javelin (which the samurai has no shield to lose in exchange for) and as Boudica knows now better than anyone, javelins rock. I was going to say that the javelin toss might play a big part in who won but you know what? I think even without the javelin the Spartan would win pretty solidly because he's armored pretty fucking heavily in bronze and, most importantly, he's got that shield. I think the shield is the real game ender in favor of the Spartan. Sorry samurai.

[foolsguinea]

Cavalry. Superiority.

One rider with a sabre beats one foot soldier with a short sword. The spear might help, but I'm betting on the samurai.

On foot, I'm still going with the samurai. Even though Japan was isolated for centuries, a 16th-century samurai is much more technologically advanced than an ancient Greek.

[mac_bolan00]

hardened steel vs. bronze. tough.

[Miller]

I voted for samurai before really considering the issue.

First of all the Spartan has that fucking javelin (which the samurai has no shield to lose in exchange for) and as Boudica knows now better than anyone, javelins rock. I was going to say that the javelin toss might play a big part in who won but you know what? I think even without the javelin the Spartan would win pretty solidly because he's armored pretty fucking heavily in bronze and, most importantly, he's got that shield. I think the shield is the real game ender in favor of the Spartan. Sorry samurai.

The javelin gives the Spartan an edge, but only because of a flaw in the scenario. The Spartan gets his customary ranged weapon, but the samurai doesn't get his. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhJotVk7nGk&feature=related) Give both warriors their traditional distance weapons, and the Spartan is dead before he can get near enough to the samurai to throw his javelin.

Take away both of their distance weapons, and it's still a pretty lopsided fight. There's no way bronze arms and armor have a chance against high quality steel. Remember, the samurai is armored too, and his armor, in the period specified by the OP, is steel plate. And unlike the hoplite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Spartan_hoplite-1_from_Vinkhuijzen.jpg), the samurai is armored in it head to toe. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Samurai.jpg) All the shield is going to do is prolong things. End of the fight, the Spartan is dead, and the samurai isn't even breathing hard.

[Terminus Est]

Aside from what's already been said about bronze vs steel, the samurai should also have access to matchlocks. Game over.

[JoelUpchurch]

Did anybody read the OP? The Samurai has a bow. At long range the Spartan is toast and in any case you can't reload a Javelin.

The OP isn't clear about what range the battle takes place at.

I also suspect that the Spartan armor was pretty thin. We are talking about infantry and not cavalry here. Even the Cavalry plate armor of the middle ages wouldn't stop the arrows from English longbows. The Samurai bows are probably a lot weaker than the English Longbow, but I suspect the armor is a lot weaker also.

Spartan armor was designed for fighting in formation against other Greeks. A Spartan would be giving up a lot of mobility against the Samurai one one one.

[Miller]

Did anybody read the OP? The Samurai has a bow.

Ha! I totally double checked the OP to see if it mentioned a bow before I posted, and I still missed it!

[Kobal2]

Did anybody read the OP? The Samurai has a bow. At long range the Spartan is toast and in any case you can't reload a Javelin.

The OP isn't clear about what range the battle takes place at.

Doesn't matter. A phalanx is toast to skirmishers as a general rule - the latter move faster since they aren't burdened with heavy armour, nor a need to fight cohesively. Unless the samurai are backed against a cliff... on all sides... they're going to whittle the Spartans down.

Even more so if the samurai get their horses - they were pretty big on horse archery. Horse archers fucked up even the Roman legions, which were superior to Spartan phalanxes on pretty much all fronts.

The fight's not even remotely fair for the Greeks. But then, 15+ centuries of technological disadvantage will do that ;)

[DSeid]

Samurai. Points made already. Better technology and more prepared for one on one battle.

[DrDeth]

I thought the point of a hoplite was to fight in a phalanx. I don't think just one hoplite would be particularly formidable. Its pretty hard to stick someone with a seven foot spear unless your in some sort of formation.

And the Samuri has a thousand years of technological advancement to draw on. The hoplites were using bronze and iron, the samuri had steel swords.

The Spartan would be screwed.

Right. True the Spartan warrior culture was scary. As a warrior, both naked and given nothing but a large club, the Spartan might well win. But Spartans were trained formation fighters, not duelists.

The bow just clinches it, but makes it unfair. I mean, it's technology is over 1000 years of developement later. It's like who's gonna win- a Samurai or a Seal? "Hai!" "buddabuddabuddabudda" "thud".

The show is just plain wrong.

But like I said, given both a breachclout and a club, I'd bet on the Spartan.

[Kobal2]

It's like who's gonna win- a Samurai or a Seal? "Hai!" "buddabuddabuddabudda" "thud".

Well, obviously. You need a ninja to make that fight even. :D

[MichaelEmouse]

1 vs 1: Samurai.

1000 vs 1000: Spartans.

Spartan equipment and tactics works quite well in formation, especially in the Greek mountains where you can use the terrain to minimize the chances of being flanked.

One guy with a very long spear is a guy who has difficulty handling his weapon. 100 guys with very long spears is a wall.

Trying to fight with one Spartan though is like trying to dam a river with one sandbag. You need a critical mass.

[JoelUpchurch]

I think some people are mixing up Macedonian phalanxes which used the long Sarissa with the much shorter spears in a Spartan phalanxes. The Sarissa is usually associated with the 4th century and not the 5th century we are talking about.

[RickJay]

The Spartan is trained, equipped, and indoctrinated in the most team-oriented style of warfare in the history of organized warfare.

The Japanese samurai warrior is trained, equipped, and indoctrinated to fight individually.

One versus one it's not really a fair fight. I don't think the issue of 1500 years of technology is actually very relevant; even if you downgrade the samurai's tech a little, he's still a trained duelist and the Spartan is not.

I haven't seen the show but how they concluded the Spartan would win is completely baffling to me.

[BowlOfDucks]

It's been said above, but I'll give my reason for voting Samurai

Spartans were trained to fight in a unit, not individually.

Samurais on the other hand duelled a lot.

So, I give it to experience

[GreedySmurf]

I haven't seen the show but how they concluded the Spartan would win is completely baffling to me.

Because as far as I can tell their 'High Tech simulation software' is an excel spreadsheet, where they enter discrete numbers for each weapons supposed effectiveness from lab tests and get it to spit out how many kills are made with each weapon. :smack:

[MichaelEmouse]

Because as far as I can tell their 'High Tech simulation software' is an excel spreadsheet, where they enter discrete numbers for each weapons supposed effectiveness from lab tests and get it to spit out how many kills are made with each weapon. :smack:

They presumably show that the Nazis did in fact beat the Soviets (Tiger pwns T-34) and that contrary to popular belief, the US won the Vietnam war.

[Mr. Kobayashi]

I haven't seen the show but how they concluded the Spartan would win is completely baffling to me.

I believe they placed a lot of emphasis on the Spartan bronze armour and shield, the rim of which they used offensively to some effect. The steel naginata polearm of the samurai couldn't penetrate the Spartan's cuirass and the kanabo club barely dented the hoplon shield. However, the Spartan spear couldn't penetrate the Samurai's armour either.

Both warriors on foot, by the way.

[RickJay]

Even on foot, even without his bow, I'm picking the Samurai to win.

There is a rather obvious reason why men fighting in phalanxes and squares have always carries pikes and spears, and why men fighting as individuals have always preferred swords.

Our Spartan is as well trained a soldier as has ever lived but this is not the kind of combat he is trained for. The Spartan is also going to lose against a medeival knight, even if the knight doesn't have his horse; the Spartan is not a duellist.

[JCorre]

For the record, the Deadliest Warrior pitted a Spartan against a ninja and the spartan won a very lopsided victory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Deadliest_Warrior_episodes#Episode_3:_Spartan_vs._Ninja

They matched a samurai against a viking in the previous episode in which the samurai won

[Kobal2]

They presumably show that the Nazis did in fact beat the Soviets (Tiger pwns T-34) and that contrary to popular belief, the US won the Vietnam war.

Well, in their defence, they do not purport to analyse or even predict wider logistical or strategical considerations. They merely seek to determine, once and for all, whether Tiger pwns T-34.

That being said, yes, that show is retarded on so many levels :D

[Kobal2]

For the record, the Deadliest Warrior pitted a Spartan against a ninja and the spartan won a very lopsided victory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Deadliest_Warrior_episodes#Episode_3:_Spartan_vs._Ninja

And here's one level where that show blows such stupendous amount of chunks. Their rating of "who would win" is a statistical analysis of which of the two contestants scored more kills in four discrete but arbitrary categories. They then force every contestant to actually *have* a valid implement of death in each category. Which leads to such retardedness as making the Roman legionnaire compete at range with a bloody siege engine since Romans didn't do range.
Let be. That's not where the rage is at.

The rage is that they arbitrarily decide what should be a given Warrior's weapon at a given range. Then gauge that particular weapon or tool strictly on its damage potential on a human body.
In this particular example, at mid range they decided that Spartans would have thrown javelins (which phalanxes never used - that's not the rage yet, read on) while ninjas would have black eggs. Black. Eggs. Then assert that javelins win, since a thrown javelin can kill a guy, while an egg filled with pepper spray doesn't. OF COURSE METSUBUSHI* ARE NOT GOING TO SCORE KILLS ! THAT'S NOT WHAT THEY'RE USED FOR, YOU ASSHAT !


* to the extent that they were ever, ever used outside of Renaissance-era fanfiction

[Sailboat]

Eh, lots of misconceptions, some of which have already been noted. The Spartan would be using the dory spear (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dory_Spear), which is not a javelin, and not a sarissa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarissa) or long pike.

Bronze is not at that great a disadvantage against steel as one might think -- bronze can be quite hard. It was replaced by iron despite iron being softer because bronze (well, the tin required to make bronze) is very rare. Steel (iron with the right amount of carbon) is probably better for weapon use , but it's not orders of magnitude better. And the Spartan is wearing solid bronze armor, probably more effective than the laquered plates the Samurai is wearing.

If the contest were without any cultural baggage, the more lightly-equipped Samurai should just run around until the very hot, heavy gear of the Spartan exhausts its wearer. But the Samurai's culture won't permit him to do that.

Yes, if they start at the visual horizon, the bow is a huge advantage.

The comments about individual fighting are onto something -- I would say that 100 Spartans would probably win against 100 Samurai more often than one against one -- but there's a catch.

I've just finished reading two books on Greek warfare by classics professor/historian Victor Davis Hanson. Although Greek hoplites indeed fought in phalanx, the Spartans were famous for training for individual combat -- which Greeks from rival city-states ridiculed as almost an affectation. Team fighting was everything to the standard hoplite, and they would probably be all but helpless against a Samurai one-on-one. But Spartans were different.

If we discount the bow, I'd give the edge to Sparta. Otherwise, Nippon.

[Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor]

The Spartan is from a relatively metal-rich society.

His gear reflects this.

Spartan.

[Martin Hyde]

I think a lot of people are discounting the utility of a shield. It doesn't appear shields were heavily used in Japan ever, but they are extremely effective because you can use them to block your enemy and counterattack all without significantly exposing yourself to injury. Unless you're trained at getting around a shield you could easily end up eating the full force of a shield bash to the upper body which would almost certainly knock you to the ground--and in any real fight the first person on the ground is almost always the loser.

[TriPolar]

Did anybody read the OP? The Samurai has a bow. At long range the Spartan is toast and in any case you can't reload a Javelin.

The OP isn't clear about what range the battle takes place at.

I also suspect that the Spartan armor was pretty thin. We are talking about infantry and not cavalry here. Even the Cavalry plate armor of the middle ages wouldn't stop the arrows from English longbows. The Samurai bows are probably a lot weaker than the English Longbow, but I suspect the armor is a lot weaker also.

Spartan armor was designed for fighting in formation against other Greeks. A Spartan would be giving up a lot of mobility against the Samurai one one one.

The OP specifies a bow, but not arrows. However, if the Samurai has arrows the Spartan is cooked. Spartans had bows also, but thought firing arrows from a distance to be cowardly compared to direct combat. However in the one-on-one situation described, the Samurai might make it a matter of honor and eschew the arrow. Or not, it's hard to tell what to believe about either of these types of warriors.

But overall, I give to the edge to the Samurai, because Samurais are cooler than Spartans. If they make a series of movies about 300 tough guys getting together on a suicide mission I'll reconsider.

[Ají de Gallina]

Samurai all the way

[Mr. Kobayashi]

For the record, the Deadliest Warrior pitted a Spartan against a ninja and the spartan won a very lopsided victory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Deadliest_Warrior_episodes#Episode_3:_Spartan_vs._Ninja

They matched a samurai against a viking in the previous episode in which the samurai won

They ran a 'back for blood' special where they pit series 1 champions against each other..

Here's the fight (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-byMJmOxe8).

[Kobal2]

If the contest were without any cultural baggage, the more lightly-equipped Samurai should just run around until the very hot, heavy gear of the Spartan exhausts its wearer. But the Samurai's culture won't permit him to do that.

Not so sure about that.
Yes, samurai have that warrior caste & honour baggage, but that doesn't make them stupid. In fact, that very same warrior caste baggage led to such things as Pearl Harbour, or Musashi setting the time and place of one of his duels so that his opponent would have the sun in his eyes - because the Japanese notion of honour in warfare is not the same as ours, or that of a chivalry novel. To them, pulling devious tricks in combat is not dishonour, it's just smart. You do what you gotta do to win. Victory is where the honour's at.
Consider how quickly they adopted firearms, despite the fact that the old guard naturally thought they were cowardly weapons and giving them to peasants was a disgrace. That they might be, ojii-san. But they win battles.

[Sage Rat]

It's worth noting that medieval honor -- Chivalry -- was largely a product of French fiction, written after the medieval ages. Japanese honor -- Bushido -- was largely a product of 19th century Japanese Nationalists. I wouldn't trust that a Warring States era Samurai was really all that imbued with honor and tradition.

(This isn't to say that there weren't warrior codes at the time, just that they aren't as stylized nor deeply rooted as popular perception has it.)

[Kobal2]

It's worth noting that medieval honor -- Chivalry -- was largely a product of French fiction, written after the medieval ages. Japanese honor -- Bushido -- was largely a product of 19th century Japanese Nationalists. I wouldn't trust that a Warring States era Samurai was really all that imbued with honor and tradition.

(This isn't to say that there weren't warrior codes at the time, just that they aren't as stylized nor deeply rooted as popular perception has it.)

Oh, absolutely. I'm just saying that, even going by the stylized and romanticized portrayal of samurais there's really nothing that would make skirmishing tactics "dishonourable", because the samurai is supposed to fight smart and leverage the weaknesses of his opponent, sometimes ruthlessly so.
The Japanese are pretty damn pragmatic when it comes to combat, even when it's symbolic, philosophy-laden stylized fictional combat. The lithe nimble guy running circles around the big guy until he's too tired to fight properly is a pretty common occurrence in samurai fiction (or anime, for that matter).