Roman Warrior vs Samurai

That same argument could be applied to samurai

Look history is never a pure thing when told by the writer of it, but with romans it is just on a whole new level, it was so ridicolous that even some Roman writers and politicians started making satire of it, i wont say it's a meme but we are almost there

Why the fuck didn't Japanese use shields, they would just get blown the fuck out every time

>samurai strikes at roman
>blocked by shield
>gets stabbed

they literally used cardboard for armor

>using metal armour
>using shields
Fucking dishonorabu scrub

They did. But warfare evolved to a point that everywhere carrying shields became impractical. Instead they would take shelter behind mobile barricades. Foot soldiers generally either used bows or long spears, both of which require two hands. Swords were just side arms worn by whoever could afford them for the most part. Cavalry also mainly used bows and spears.

Japanese used lamellar style armor. Leather and iron, made up of small plates. Pretty effective stuff actually.

Which era though? For both.

Shot in the dark here, but Legionnaires were worse warriors but better soldiers. They would win in large numbers but lose one on one.

>long spears
these are called pikes

Depends. Did the Samurai have guns?

>Roman Warrior
So what, the 600BC Roman warriors, before they became soldiers?

Well the Samurai easily.

What's with the "romans soldiers were not good individually" meme?

The samurai are just fashionized soldiers who never proved their worth in an actual battles unlike romans who fought perpetually throughout europe, north africa and the middle east.

>in b4 typhoons didn't help to repel mongols from japanese.

>The samurai are just fashionized soldiers who never proved their worth in an actual battles
Wat
They proved it time and time again. It's just the edo period where they became peaceful pussies.

A 1500s Samurai would cut you in half for smirking at him.

>The samurai are just fashionized soldiers who never proved their worth in an actual battles
When the anti-weeab task force is also retarded.jpg

For the longest time, the Samurai were the only soldiers around. Everyone from the lowliest footslogger of with just a sword and spear to a cavalryman complete with horse, bow, spear, and the two meme swords was samurai.

Semiprofessionals like the Ashigaru only became important in the1500s because of the increased level of violence and scale Nip wars escalated to at the time.

What kind of samurai, before or after European contact? Because after they had guns than would pierce hamata and a scutum. But if it's an individual samuray vs an individual Legionary (Tiberian or Augustus) I would bet for the legionary if they are on foot and can't use long range weapons, the scutum is a fucking portable fortress and the gladius hispanensis can pierce mail with a good stab.

That really depends. Which Do we go for early Romans? Post-Marian Legionairies? What about late empire? Is it a battle or a 1 on 1 fight? If it's a battle who is leading? Do auxiliairies count?
Same goes for samurai.
Not to mention they weren't even "alive" at the same time.

Roman would win probably, samurai would not be able to deal with the large shield imo.

Not to mention the Roman heavy javelins would probably cause great trouble.

>samurai would not be able to deal with the large shield imo.
Dont get this, why not, its 1 v 1 so he can circle.

>so he can circle.
I'm pretty sure Romans could move too, they were not video game bosses.

If samurai can beat knights with their guns, wouldn't that make roman warriors much easier?

>Samurai suck in 1v1!
The cunts literally have that shit high in their training priorities.

Meanwhile the Samurai have fought versus opponents with shields and managed well. I have no idea how a Roman cunt all by himself onesy would deal with the plethora of halberds and fighting spears Samurai cunts have.

>The samurai are just fashionized soldiers who never proved their worth in an actual battles
>What is the Sengoku period
For about 100 years, the samurai fucked shit up all over Japan, overthrowing lords, laying sieges etc. They were not "fashionized soldiers". They fought on horseback, with bows, with spears and pikes, katana and even arquebuses. For all intents and purposes, they were knee-deep in war.

Romans win because they can drink milk

It's harder to match with a giant shield. The Samurai were all about speed and quick attacks.

I don't see the Roman taking this one, he'd have to go in with blunt force which would probably get him killed.

>The Samurai were all about speed and quick attacks.
Yeah yeah and knights were slow moving turtles, to much anime.

>The Samurai were all about speed and quick attacks.
From what retarded game/anime do you get that? The Ashigaru, literally "the fleet of feet" were the light infantr, the samuray were the heavy horse cavalry (with slow as fuck ponies as war mounts), the only ones than used cavalry in a charge were the Takeda at the later Sengoku period.

>Yeah yeah and knights were slow moving turtles, to much anime.
Never watched anime, a large heavy scutum will make you turn slower than someone without a shield.
We're clearly talking about on foot and Samurai not Ashigaru

> It's harder to match with a giant shield.

Holy hell haha, you believe it is easier to circle a person than for a person with a shield to just turn?

Retard alert.

Those shields were not that heavy at all.

> The Samurai were all about speed and quick attacks.

As was literally everyone else at any time in history.

Nigga those sheilds weighed 10kg, that's 22lbs for you Americans. You're going to struggle with that one handed against a single man.

>As was literally everyone else at any time in history.
The Romans were about standing ground, letting the enemy attack your shield and then stabbing him in the gut.

>struggling with 22 pounds
My god LOL. Roman soldiers weren't 11 years old

> Nigga those sheilds weighed 10kg, that's 22lbs for you Americans.

lol that is not heavy.

I exercise with a 32kg for warm up lol.

Also, 10kg is the recorded top of the line stuff, the scutum found at Dura Europas for instance was was only 12 pounds.

> The Romans were about standing ground, letting the enemy attack your shield and then stabbing him in the gut.

Which also includes speed and quick attacks you imbecile.

Also, formation fighting is not the same as individual fighting, they would fight differently then.

> I exercise with a 32kg

*kettlebell, forgot to put that in.

This, Nippon steel can't melt Roman shields.

Samurai teleports behind opponent and slices him in half while shouting the name of his attack

>Also talking about tactics middle age plans are the dankest memes on the market, middle age tacticians are the result of incestuous relationships combined with limitless spoiledness, it was literally a race on who gets the biggest shit on the military market first
While Medieval tactics weren't as refined as those in Antiquity, they were more sophisticated than most people believe.

Well the funny thing is that Romans used it in battle, carrying it for hours. That means he is probably used to its weight and can carry it relativly easy. Of course it was still quite a weight, so yes he would be slower than the samurai. It would really come down to individual skill, but I think that a Roman veteran had a good chance, considering his, for a samurai, unusual tactics with the giant shield and small sword. If the veteran is quick and can surprise him with something like a shieldbash and remains close, he could easily win. Don't forget that Romans have experience fighting armed people with large swords, while a Samurai would most likely have never faced an opponent like a roman infantrist, armed with a large shield and gladius. Against that stands that a Samurai has the range and mobility to try and manoever around the shield. This is hard however, since
A) the Roman moves with him, turning his shield continualy to the samurai and having to turn less.
B) the Samurai has to watch the Roman, since if the Roman catches him midmovement, the Samurai is in deep trouble. Over all I would give the legionair the advantage, but a skilled Samurai can definetly win
Ps. Sorry for bad English, no native

>My god LOL. Roman soldiers weren't 11 years old
>I exercise with a 32kg for warm up lol.
Are you guys retarded? The point is it's not going to be the fastest thing around in single combat, sure they are trained to use it but it's too much for the situation. 32kg isn't heavy for exercise either, but combat isn't weight lifting.

You guys astound me. You genuinely think a warrior who's spent his life training for single combat will be defeated by a wage paid soldier trained to fight in a line and stab charging barbarians in the gut...

I'm a bigger Romaboo than anyone but this is retarded

Well Romans are trained a lot and, from Marius Reforms on, basicly a professional soldier, so in that regard they are probably the same

In different ways though.

This fight is the samurais area.

It's like an infantry man vs a sniper in a 1 v 1 city duel. The sniper's gonna win.

>It's harder to match with a giant shield.
Not really, since it's more practical to move your body around a large shield vs. moving a large shield around your body.

their bows were weak as shit, couldn't penetrate samurai armor. Only really good at killing ashi.

Then guns came from Europe and shields became even more useless.

Yeah but the samurai is faced with a small man with a giant shield, who stabs if you get close. It is hard to kill that, even in single combat, if the legionair knows what he is doing. They aren't invincible, just stupidly hard to kill, since the Samurai has nowhere to stabb/slash

>who stabs if you get close
Well considering your typical early era samurai would be armed with a naginata or at least some gimmick spear with hooks, there would be no need for him to get close.

Actually I would like to see what a solid naginata blow would do to a scutum...

> Are you guys retarded?

No, you just cannot accept the game changer in duel that is having a large shield.

> You genuinely think a warrior who's spent his life training for single combat will be defeated by a wage paid soldier trained to fight in a line and stab charging barbarians in the gut...

Yes.

> Well considering your typical early era samurai would be armed with a naginata or at least some gimmick spear with hooks, there would be no need for him to get close.

I see you never did sparring in your life, you can easily close in to a polearm wielder if you have a small shield, it takes less than a second.

> Actually I would like to see what a solid naginata blow would do to a scutum...

Not much, even if the Roman allowed the samurai to hit the rim instead of the flat, the naginata would just go in 10-20 cm and get stuck in the shield, allowing the Roman to stab the living shit out of the samurai;

j.gifs.com/BgyJBn.gif

(mind you, the shield is fixed into the ground, allowing far greater penetration to the axe)

lol

*large shield, I meant large shield

>You genuinely think a warrior who's spent his life training for single combat will be defeated by a wage paid soldier
Taller, stronger, better armored, great weapons etc.

>No, you just cannot accept the game changer in duel that is having a large shield.
Matey if large shields were the best thing to have in a duel then duelists would have always had large shields. As it turns out, the best shields for duels are small extremely mobile shields. Called a buckler, you know, also known as a duelling shield?

You'll make up anything to prove the Romans as some sort of god tier super soldiers.

>Seasonal typhoon would beat knight, Roman warrior, and samurai.
FTFY

>I see you never did sparring in your life, you can easily close in to a polearm wielder if you have a small shield, it takes less than a second.
The sentence was "the samurai will have a hard time getting close" but there's no reason for him to do it considering he would most certainly engage the fight with a long weapon. Could a scutum wielder easily close someone with a polearm, yeah sure, easier than the reverse no doubt.

Apparently the roman at one time got a pretty rough time dealing with dacian falx.

Duelling shields aren't buckler... actually they are the giantest shields there is.

In a duel, you use what is prescribed, not necessarily what is best or what makes the most sense, it's a formal combat before being something about pure efficiency.

>In a duel, you use what is prescribed, not necessarily what is best or what makes the most sense, it's a formal combat before being something about pure efficiency.
Yes but if the scutum was so good in 1 v 1s like he claims they would have been the preferred shield throughout

And yet they aren't, they are only used by forces who line up and fight defensively.

>all that crap
You're not a field manager, stop moving goalposts.

> Matey if large shields were the best thing to have in a duel then duelists would have always had large shields.

Except you cannot carry a large shield around all day in civilian life you imbecile.

> As it turns out, the best shields for duels are small extremely mobile shields. Called a buckler, you know, also known as a duelling shield?

No, those were merely the shields that were small enough to be carried around and strapped to your belt.

You cannot be this retarded to believe that a smaller shield is better than a larger one in a melee.

>Except you cannot carry a large shield around all day in civilian life you imbecile.
Except duels are planned fights with planned weapons, not random agressions during your daily life.

Are you for serious?
>if large shields were the best thing to have in a duel then duelists would have always had large shields.
You know what would be good in duels? Crossbows. I wonder why nobody used them, I guess they were shit.
You know what else would be nice? Having 10 armoured men with you. But as it turns out, numerical advantage sucks.
> As it turns out, the best shields for duels are small extremely mobile shields. Called a buckler, you know, also known as a duelling shield?
> As it turns out, the best weapons for parrying are small extremely mobile knives. Called a dagger, you know, also known as parrying dagger.
> As it turns out, the best containers for water are buckets. Called a tank, you know, also known as Mark VIII.

You are mentioning tanks and armored seconds, are you?

It was not me who stated bucklers as best shield, because
>dueling shields
Using names of things as sort of argument is... I already gave one example with tank, but here it goes
>Tanks could by carried by soldiers in backpacks, hence the name - light tanks
>Sometimes human girl and swords would marry, children of such couples would be called swordsmen.

>It was not me who stated bucklers as best shield, because
Wait... it wasn't me either... could it be that there are multiple people in here!?

But nonetheless "duels" are arranged fights with arranged weapons nonetheless. That's why "dueling shields" could be those retardly oversized weapons in the first place.

>600 bc roman warrior

basically a savage no better than a celt or a germanic warrior

Roman via being an alpha.

here's your (you)
nip iron ore was shit mate, the fact that they where able to make swords as decent as a katana by itself is a miracle and really shows the inventiveness of the nips at the time. But on almost all levels their equipment was inferior to the european counterpart of that time. So no I don't see a samurai beating a knight even if the knight only has chain going on equipment alone.
the roman warrior really depends on what time period you are speaking off as late roman soldiers wore similar equipment to early knights.

Keep in mind this is only based on equipment only, irl it could happen that someone with inferior equipement still wins due to luck or circumstances. So yes some samurai could win but based on equipment only it's not likely

B-but my animes...

The japanese samurai themself didn't use shields as their armor was enough to stop the arrows comming from the common japanese bow.
the ashigaru and common foot soldiers on the other hand did at times carry large wooden shields with them to create mobile barriers against arrows.

Well someone doesn't lift it seems

>22 pounds
>Heavy

I love weebs

The armor was pretty effective for the region it was used in but against an english longbow or heck even a scandinavian hunting bow it would be useless. Thank the shit nip iron ore for that

>struggle
>with 10kg
nigga do you even lift?
10kg is litteraly nothing, it only becomes a problem if you hold it raised for a long period of time

>it only becomes a problem if you hold it raised for a long period of time
Hopefully battles were a short time affair.

>Implying you don't place your shield on the ground in formation when you want cover.
>Implying you have to keep a sheild raised all the time for it to be effective
>Implying you use a stretched arm to raise a shield

Legionaries trained with equipment that was much heavier than their battle equipment. I doubt exhaustion would be an issue.

Also, who are we comparing? Hastati, principes, triarii, praetorians? A novice samurai, or one that has decades of experience?

While hastati and principes had swords, the triarii carried a spear and a sword. Not to mention they all carried two pilum.

let's not forget OP didn't mentain which era romans and which era samurai as that too makes a huge difference in training, tactics and equipment

>WHO WIN??

the jews

I'm pretty sure battles don't just last for few minutes.

Battles typically last for hours at time if not days.

11th century Samurai vs 15th century Roman

Who wins in a battle between a cat and a dog?

The mouse of course.

PULLO BACK IN FORMATION

you don't hold your sheild raised for the entire duration of the battle though, and by the time you get tired from holding it your oppenent will be just as tired from holding his sword

well then the win goes to the samurai as the eternal italian is shit at war

FUCK OFF

1v1? Samurai

100v100 Roman

Never understood this scene. They literally push a column to form a one person thick perimeter and compromised the integrity of the line to save one drunk bastard who is obviously fucking up on purpose.

Roman logistics would win everytime

Which Romans?

>It's harder to match with a giant shield.
Only if you are phenomenally weak. As in medical issues.

>Yes but if the scutum was so good in 1 v 1s like he claims they would have been the preferred shield throughout
They were, you faggot. Shields only get smaller as limb armor increases, except in civilian fighting where it isn't practical or even legal to carry a full sized shield.

That's a fantasy. Those bow could no more penetrate Japanese armor than they could European chain mail.

Romans, no chance at all to the samurai. Maybe a better measure would be Spartans to samirai

The ones from that TV show.

I never understand the hate boner Veeky Forums has for samurai.

I dont know if its just hatred of weaboo or white nationalist bulking at the thought that a non white warrior could be counted in the same league as a European one

Shitty equipment and strange warfare traditions

Its mostly knee-jerk versus Weeabs. Except as fucking retarded.