10k Samurai VS 10k Romans Who wins in a battle on a flat land.

Depends on leaders, weather, morale and many other variables.

romans boy

i aint no japanofag

>>719370832
10k Knights

Romans win. Read some history books.

>>719370949
Leaders
R:Germanicus
S:Hattori Hanzō

W:Light rain (no fire type weapons)

Morale is average for both armies

>>719371183
thats a ninja not samurai

>>719371331
fine Minamoto no Yoshitsune then had to look that one up

>>719370832
Since samurai main weapon is bow and arrow and romans have shields they do have a huge advantage.
+ Samurai doesnt have shields so advantage os also in close combat
Case closed

>>719370949
Yes. A considerably large set of variables.

>>719370832
> Flat land
> Small hill fort

Mmmk

>Romans are extremely physically strong, well trained, disciplined soldiers with an adept, coordinated fighting style

>Samurai are random nobility

You didn't think this through at all, OP. The samurai would get absolutely butchered.

>>719370832
Lol rome would stomp them without question

>>719371441
ok den romans still win
west>east

>>719371445
This, especially when you consider that the romans are already in a fort on defense, thats a huge advantage.

File: gray-warrior-katana-a46-xl1556.jpg (30KB, 540x540px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 540x540px

>>719370832
samurai due to their superior weaponry.

>>719371735
Weapon, not weaponry.

>>719371735
but they have no defense against pilum

Romans because battle formations > army of duelists

>>719371600
This.

Even in the case of well trained samurai, they aren't an organized army.

Better question: 1 samurai vs 1 roman soldier.

Debate.

I'm a big fan of anime and Japanese culture (samurai my shiznit).
However even i know that attacking a full battalion of Romes finest is a death sentence.
The Romans were unmatched in waging large scale battles and being that they are in an open field... shit son. Romans got this no doubt

File: image.jpg (116KB, 749x729px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 749x729px

Could the servers even handle a battle of that size? If so, what monster if a PC would be needed to have a fight like that? OP didn't think this through...

>>719371914
they are still random nobility, and the pilum could easily weaken if not destroy their armor before the swordplay even starts

>>719371914
Samurai wins. Romans were Soldiers not warriors. they tried to fight as a unit while the Samurai were great at single combat.

>>719372039
OP here
I could handle 5k vs 5k on my PC but no game exists to do it i think you shit, why do you think I said debate.

File: image.jpg (20KB, 318x335px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 318x335px

>>719372207

Samurai weren't stupid... This would most likely end in a siege. And if the romans try to attack... I don't know ambush, I guess?

>>719371735
Do people still believe this meme?

>>719370832
Total weeb, but I love warfare.
Romans have it free. Samurai were not as they are depicted in Kurosawa films--they were often random farmers, hired hands, who had no problem running when the odds were against them. That is why the "story" of the Samurai is the opposite-to show what people SHOULD be, not shat they ARE.
Its an interesting topic to read up on.

File: sssssssssss.png (36KB, 745x485px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 745x485px

>>719372361

>>719372591
Weren't samurai about muh honor and not into the whole ambush thing?

>>719372591
>t. weeabo

>>719372656
you still dont get it

Probs samurai. Nip steel beats roman bronze. Romans were better at war, but it doesn't matter much when your opponent is hundreds of years ahead technologically.

the samurai win

the two roman consuls can't agree on who should lead, because the junior consul is a patrician and absolutely will not follow the senior consul.

the junior consul leaves with half the army and the samurai pounce on this bellicose buffoonery and slaughter the army piecemeal

>>719370832
Romans. They are literally superior in every way. Especially if they are controlling a fucking fort and playing it defensively. Just a cursory knowledge of Roman military history will verify this.

>>719370832
Large numbers on both sides Romans win pretty much every time mainly due to their military being based around the Legion. Take the Pilum for example; its by no means an accurate weapon (its basically a stick with a cannonball taped around it,) but if you have a couple hundred of those suckers flying all at once its pretty much doom. Shield wall's a pretty damn hard nut to crack, even if you gave the samurai bows they still probably couldn't bust through. Smaller numbers and the samurai might have a chance.

>>719370832
Samurai win at individual combat
They weren't soldier who worked as units under command, only little more than fancy mercenaries
The only difference between a samurai and a ninja was how they carried out missions, as well as their rank in society for them to have become either
A Roman soldier worked as part of a legion
Individually, they were not amazingly skilled warriors
One Roman v One Samurai, Roman gets his shit canned
Legion of Romans versus Samurai team, samurais get their teeth kicked in by Roman boots

>>719370832
>>719370832

The first Samurai were in about the year 1100-1200 AD and the pinnacle of the Samurai, the ones all the weaboos worship, was in about 1500-1600.

The Roman Empire was at its peak in about 280 AD.

It's pretty pathetic on the Samurai's part that they are pretty much on par with technology about 1,000 years older.

>>719373151
Sure if you mean that samurai can use firearms it change situation

>>719371588
Underrated

>>719370832
personally id say the romans, but only if they were middle age of rome soldiers and not end tier thugs. samurai were indeed good at one on one combat but truth be told they were shit when it came to the offensive. Unless raiding a stronghold or using a dark/densely forested area to their advantage a band of samurai were only effective at offense in small groups. the romans have better armor, superior weaponry, better defensive tactics, and most importantly BALISTAS. The samurai forces woud be decimated to half before the first swords clashed.

Off hand I would have to give it to the Romans. Mostly due to bring on the defensive. But a rather important question no one seems to be asking is which Era of Roman military and what's the makeup of the army. 10k republic Era auxiliaries could just as easily lose as win given the fact that they are peasants with shit weapons and hardly any armor. The Roman armies weren't professional soldiers until the reform. Even then, an army of 10,000 would only have around 2,000 legionaires with the remainder being half trained auxiliaries, mercenaries and civilian conscripts all of whom have dog shit for morale.

>>719370832
Romans win, samurai will be busy jacking off to hentai

File: zEEVcjj.jpg (28KB, 600x337px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 600x337px

>>719373151
Greeks used bronze. Roman armor was pretty much all iron. Don't even matter that it's that much heavier than steel if you're on defense, its just as tough.
>Tfw pleb doesn't check his facts

Easily the samurai because you never specified which Romans so that means that half of them will be women aka easy victory

>>719370832
Republic citizen-soldiers or professional Imperial corps?

File: image.gif (2MB, 500x459px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 500x459px

>>719372656
Allow me to clearly spell it out for you, since you clearly do not fucking understand the joke I have posted.
>I understand that we're talking about who would win realistically
>I made a joke saying "look, I know we're talking about a battle in real life, but il instead complain about the issues a computer would face making such a battle happen"
>OP is actually fucking retarded.

>>719373861
Japanese steel isn't that great. It's basically pig iron. The Weebs have made an entire fan fiction out of the Samurai and glamorized it far beyond anything it ever was.

File: 87654854.png (1MB, 825x955px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 825x955px

>>719372039
>console peasant detected

>>719371735
Uh no, the Katana would be useless against the Roman's armor which is highly resistant to slashing attacks, plus they have a shield and Pilum.

here's a better one

50 greek slingers versus one carthaginian elephant

>>719373912
Never specified the samurai either so I guess they are katana wielding neckbeard weebs.

>>719374088
yea but samurai have the longbow which will chew through the mail easy

>>719373151
Uh Romans were some of the very first to develop steel, thats why they beat the soft iron swords of their Gaulic and Germanic enemies.

File: 10308_931592736918593_3167363733464733612_n.jpg (24KB, 960x540px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 960x540px

>>719374105
THIS FAGGOT GETS IT

>>719374173
they used lorica segmenta mainly, almost never mail

>>719374334
except when they used lorica hamata, aka chainmail, which most of the rank and file warriors would wear

>>719374105
The elephant

>>719374173
Romans from post reform had layered steel armor and a shield that blocked pretty much any and all projectiles. Bows would mean nothing.

>>719374173
>>719374334
And there's still the shields to get through before that, and if you bust through those there's a buddy standing right behind him ready to stick you.

>>719374594
>>719374623
i still say their consuls fuck it all up and get the whole army killed

>>719374569
No, in the height of Roman glory, their armies almost always had Lorica Segmenta. It is one of the most iconic parts of Roman armor. Light infantry like Auxillia had the Hamata.

>>719374173
Not when there's a wall of them in phalanx formation with tower shields. Samurai couldn't do shit against a phalanx.

>>719374117
Kek but I mean the Roman Populus most were not Roman soldiers

Samurai win. Anybody can 10k civilians. Idgaf where they are from. Now if OP wants to bother to say Centurions or Hoplites, maybe even Legionaires, then we have a battle.
Also

>flat land
>Romans have a small hilltop

Dafuq.

>>719374569
it was only used by auxilary plebs, making up most of the army was segmenta

>>719370832
really the only answer you need, skip to 6:55 and bear in mind this is to show you how ineffective a katana is against steel
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDkoj932YFo

>>719374707
There isn't really flat ground for 20k people in Europe which means the battle is taking place well outside the empire. The senior consul would just imprison or execute the little shits that argue and go on about winning an easy victory

>>719374991
consuls bear imperium, you cannot arrest your fellow consul

>>719374805
Imperial Roman armies didn't use the phalanx, you're thinking of the testeudo.

>>719375078
It's pretty easy to have someone killed in an army camp thousands of miles from the bounds of imperial law

File: images (4).jpg (25KB, 342x431px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 342x431px

>>719371735
Lol, this guy.

Spartans. 300 of them.

>>719374707
...? Uhm... Roman leadership was incredibly good, capable of commanding soldiers to fight as one at all times and pull off very complicated formations, Samurai very often would flat out IGNORE orders if the one giving them didn't have express permission to do so. A good example is at the battle of Siekegahara(probably mispelled that) in 1600 where Shimazu Yoshihiro(the best Samurai in southern Japan) refused to reinforce Ishida Mitsunari's right flank because he wasn't technically the appointed leader, a pivotal point in the battle that might have been the reason they lost.

>>719375322
you're not going to get away with killing a patritian cornelian who bears imperium

>>719375399
except when the consuls in a consular army argue and get the army killed

which happened

>>719374707
Implying command on the Japanese side isn't hanging by a thread given that to put together that many samurai means making some very flimsy truces between the assorted feudal lords. Except for one or two shifts in power in history and its end, the chain of command in the Roman military was pretty damn solid. Hence the reason they owned all of Europe at one point, while the Japs couldn't even make it off their damn island, except to hold Korea for a couple of years.

>>719375147
Or maybe just a standard shield wall formation? Tuestudo was used rarely, only if under very heavy archer fire. If it was abused it would make the men very tired very quickly, because holding a massive hunk of wood above your head for extended periods of time while it is constantly hit with rocks and arrows is not easy.

>>719375490
Only the stupidest of armies did this, and usually it didn't happen, if it was a common thing, the Roman army wouldn't have been as successful as it was.

>>719370832
Like say 300 Spartans vs the Immortals? Lol I know its you fag from the other thread.

>>719375553
>all of europe

yea it was cool when julius caesar conquered germania and brittania

>>719375553
Yea, as badass as Samurai were, leadership was not their strong suit.

>>719375423
On one hand you fave annihilation from a fractured army. On the other you have the possibility of getting caught killing one man.

It's pretty easy to say someone died in battle. Even if you are caught, at least you lived a little longer. Plus the prestige of the victory helps insulate you from the repercussions, especially if you have a powerful benefactor

>>719375575
Alas but these are the legions we are talking about. The men most of the time were afraid more of their officers than the enemy. So fatigue is out of the picture. Also during combat romans would switch in and out of combat every 10 mins or so.

>>719375665
it was basically guaranteed to happen during the first engagement of any war the romans fought until the imperial era

remember that:

- romans had to pass under the yoke
- that gauls sacked roma
- that cannae fiasco
- the disastrous first encounter with germans
-battle of teutoberg

>>719375886
Yea, true. But constantly switching soldiers is dangerous, and breaks apart the battle line. I feel like if the Samurai were on the defensive, they might win, but on the offensive, without shields... kek it would end baaaaad

>>719376086
Yea, talking army to army though... Romans were superior.

>>719375575
The testeudo was hardly used at all aside from approaching walls, towers or other fortifications. My point was that no standard Roman unit used a phalanx, that was mostly a Greek thing.

>>719376156
Again this is the Roman legion we are taking about they knew what they were doing and would often wait for a break in the enemy formation.

>>719375788
Point nonwithstanding? Big ol chunk of Europe still more than the Feudal Japanese ever had, or had the potential to.

>>719370832
I like samurai. Very cool guys.
But.
Gonna hafta vote romans.
Better armor. Chariots, long range bows with arrows and catapults. Stronger swords even if they have shorter reach. Better spears. Etc.
Romans are more well equipped for the fight. The japs... Their armor is made of fucking bamboo and maybe some small coin sized bits of steel which are nearly paper thin.
Not very good armor.

if the samurai use advanced cavalry tactics like horse archers combined with mounted charge I bet the japs can crack a legion

>>719370832
Romans would win and anyone who says otherwise is a faggot weeb who knows nothing about either group

>>719370832
Romans for sure they conquer so much thanks to roman legions Samurai didnt do shit so yea easy win

>>719376792
This.

romans win but then have a devastating civil war and vandals sack rome

>>719376391
Yea, honestly I don't know why they didn't try it, modify the shields to have a little slot for the spears and march, combine that with the testudo and it would be impossible to defeat.

What about technology? Weren't samurai around as recently as a couple hundred years ago? There are literally photos of them.

>>719376690
Romans had horses too, no one is using horses. OP didn't mention horses. Which is why the Romans win. Their battle tactics were based on large groups, the Samurai were better at smaller unit combat.

>>719376690
The type of bow used by samurai is difficult to use on horseback. Add to that the fact that advanced tactics of any kind are out of the question for the samurai due to almost non existent command structure and no unit training what so ever.

Am army of duelists simply isn't a match for a professional army

>>719376964
Because a huge part of the phalanx is the use of long spears or pikes. Greek hoplites used spears close to double the length of those used by the Romans. The style of shield used is also drastically different. Using both as different units within the army may have worked, but there's no way to implement a proper phalanx into the Legion without losing some of their effectiveness as heavy infantry.