Roman Warrior vs Samurai Much more fair than Knight vs Samurai,

>>2422423
samurai would beat knight and roman warrior

>>2422435
>Implying

The roman legion would beat pussy knights and pussy samurai assholes.

>>2422435
Samurai with Katana and full armor loses to Knight with full plate and sword/shield...

>>2422423
single combat? I'll give it to the Roman, slightly, because shields are good

>>2422476
Top kek
Roman were good at tactics and army managenent, the soldier themselves were average, a Roman princep would lose versus a samurai because samurai trained one on one combat to the strain, while Roman training was a mix between basic combat and formation discipline, in fact a Roman army beats a samurai one, but the one samurai beats the one Roman soldier, that is why good tactic will always be superior to combat skill

>>2422503

Samurai aren't used to fighting opponents with shields. I agree with you but I think the shield gives the Roman an edge to at least put them on par

>>2422503
there are written accounts of roman soldiers breaking formation and fucking shit up hollywood style leaving a dozen dead and then making it back to the ranks alive and shit, the romans weren't pushovers in single combat.

>>2422503
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

>>2422553
Lol Roman written inherit are the most staged and reworked things in history, they had to keep it to the tone at their times please do not believe that shit for the sake of human intelligence

>>2422569

That same argument could be applied to samurai

>>2422581
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

>>2422652
they literally used cardboard for armor

>>2422677
>using metal armour
>using shields
Fucking dishonorabu scrub

>>2422652
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.

>>2422677
Japanese used lamellar style armor. Leather and iron, made up of small plates. Pretty effective stuff actually.

>>2422423
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.

>>2422719
>long spears
these are called pikes

>>2422423

Depends. Did the Samurai have guns?

>>2422423
>Roman Warrior
So what, the 600BC Roman warriors, before they became soldiers?

Well the Samurai easily.

File: Romanarmytraining.jpg (133KB, 800x570px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 800x570px

>>2422861
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.

>>2422958
>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.

>>2422958
>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.

File: aa3947d24e3d.jpg (111KB, 967x1230px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 967x1230px

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.

>>2422423
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.

>>2423076
>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.

>>2423077
>so he can circle.
I'm pretty sure Romans could move too, they were not video game bosses.

>>2422423
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.

>>2422958
>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.

>>2422423
Romans win because they can drink milk

>>2423089
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.

>>2423149
>The Samurai were all about speed and quick attacks.
Yeah yeah and knights were slow moving turtles, to much anime.

>>2423149
>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.

>>2423158
>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.
>>2423168
We're clearly talking about on foot and Samurai not Ashigaru

>>2423089
> 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.

>>2423177
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.

>>2423185
>struggling with 22 pounds
My god LOL. Roman soldiers weren't 11 years old

>>2423185

> 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.

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

>>2422561
>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.

>>2423185
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

>>2423207
>My god LOL. Roman soldiers weren't 11 years old
>>2423208
>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

>>2423234
Well Romans are trained a lot and, from Marius Reforms on, basicly a professional soldier, so in that regard they are probably the same

>>2423238
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.

>>2423149
>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.

>>2422652

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.

>>2423242
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

>>2423256
>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...

>>2423234
> 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.

>>2423269

> 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;

https://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>>2423287

>>2423287
>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.

>>2422435
>Seasonal typhoon would beat knight, Roman warrior, and samurai.
FTFY

>>2423287
>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.

>>2423302
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.

>>2423317
>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.

>>2423234
>all that crap
You're not a field manager, stop moving goalposts.

>>2423302

> 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.

>>2423501
>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.

>>2423537
Are you for serious?
>>2423302
>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.

>>2424159
You are mentioning tanks and armored seconds, are you?

>>2424168
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.

>>2424238
>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.

>>2422943
>600 bc roman warrior

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

Roman via being an alpha.

File: (you).jpg (494KB, 1717x962px) Image search: [Google]

494KB, 1717x962px

>>2422435
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

>>2424301
B-but my animes...

>>2422652
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.

>>2423185
Well someone doesn't lift it seems

>22 pounds
>Heavy

I love weebs

>>2422719
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

>>2423185
>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

>>2424355
>it only becomes a problem if you hold it raised for a long period of time
Hopefully battles were a short time affair.

>>2424378
>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.

>>2424412
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

>>2422423
>WHO WIN??

the jews

>>2424355
I'm pretty sure battles don't just last for few minutes.

Battles typically last for hours at time if not days.

>>2424418
11th century Samurai vs 15th century Roman

>>2424422
Who wins in a battle between a cat and a dog?

The mouse of course.

File: vorenus_rome.jpg (92KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 1280x720px

>>2422553
PULLO BACK IN FORMATION

>>2424426
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

>>2424429
well then the win goes to the samurai as the eternal italian is shit at war

File: WARFACE.jpg (63KB, 600x310px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 600x310px

>>2424496
FUCK OFF

File: GO BE ROMAN SOMEWHERE ELSE.jpg (197KB, 1024x724px) Image search: [Google]

197KB, 1024x724px

>>2422423
1v1? Samurai

100v100 Roman

>>2424496
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

File: legionaryevolution.jpg (208KB, 1004x392px) Image search: [Google]

208KB, 1004x392px

Which Romans?

>>2423149
>It's harder to match with a giant shield.
Only if you are phenomenally weak. As in medical issues.

>>2423334
>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.

File: 1487142505247.jpg (48KB, 600x550px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 600x550px

>>2424330
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

>>2426474
The ones from that TV show.

>>2422423
I never understand the hate boner /his/ 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

>>2427262
Shitty equipment and strange warfare traditions

>>2427262
Its mostly knee-jerk versus Weeabs. Except as fucking retarded.

File: IMG_1806.jpg (94KB, 833x1024px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 833x1024px

>>2422553

Like in 300
>"sorry mutated hill baby you can't fight with us, everything hinges on our phalanx formation"
Two minutes into combat
>"fuck it m8s let's break formation to do some matrix tricks that allow 50-100 enemies to run past us and slice our hamstrings from behind even if they're just retreating

>>2427282
Shitty equipment

Said no one at the time including Europeans.

>strange warfare traditions

Like Pike men, castles and firearms? Cant imagine what other part of the world had stuff like that

>>2427338
LOL please, japan had shit-tier iron, which meant shit-tier weapons and armor. Combine that with Roman soldiers being more heavily armored and having a good shield and the Samurai is fucked.

File: 1451437062805.jpg (89KB, 1110x440px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 1110x440px

>>2427351
I am going to go out on a limb here and say you've never read an academic book about Japanese weapons or armor, and are speaking out of your ass.

Hint: Why would the Chinese be using an imported Japanese blade if they were shit?

>>2427369
The Chinese were even worse

>>2422895
Not all the spears used were of pike length though. In fact pike-length spears were not used at all in Japan until the latter half of the sengoku jidai, if I remember correctly. They merely used a kind of long spear, something 8 to 10 feet long at most, or around there. The 15+ foot spears used in massive formations came fairly late in Japan's history. A samurai would mostly likely use a spear no more than 8 to 10 feet long at the very most.

>>2424330
Considering the Japanese had longbows for centuries, in fact predating the development of the plated armor that people associate with samurai, it's pretty erroneous to think it is incapable of stopping arrows.

>>2427385
Are you high? The Chinese had blast furnaces and high quality metal work.

>>2427430
Are you retarded? Why would the chinese import Japanese weapons if theirs were superior? The only conclusion left to you is that Japanese weapons and armour serve purposes other than warfare
Checkmate brainlet

>>2427435
There swords were not necessarily superior, but they could turn out greater volumes of relatively high quality steel.

The Japanese sword was prized as a Calvary weapon on the continent, a kind of hand an and a half sword that could fill multiple roles.

The fact is both China and Japan produced high quality weapons and armors. In no period European or Chinese document will you find the suggestion that Japanese armor or weapons were of poor quality.

>>2427351
>japan had shit-tier iron, which meant shit-tier weapons and armor
No it just meant it was harder to get impurities out to get quality steel. If you have to be sparing with your supplies though then you do a rush job and get lower quality products. In times of war, you often had a lot of cheap weapons being made as quickly as possible because that's what was economical at the time. In times of peace, you had far more quality weapons and armor being made. The most impressive weapons and armor would be treated as family heirlooms, the simple fact that they managed to survive generations of use is a testament to their quality. You can only patch and fix broken metal so many times before you have to scrap it, yet there are swords and sets of armor that managed to survive decades of war and still be in serviceable condition. That's real quality.

>>2427450
Yeah the brittle steel was great for felling dangerous and bamboo armoured peasants

>>2427462
Japanese steel was no more brittle than any comparably hard steel produced anywhere in the world.

The spring temper you see in European swords was not common until the renaissance

>>2427462
Japanese steel is not remarkably more brittle than anything you'd find in contemporary Europe. Most European iron yields were of pretty low quality as well, Iberia had famously high quality iron and steel (known even since antiquity) but the rest of the continent was mediocre to poor. You didn't see a marked improvement in European steel until more modern smelting and forging techniques were developed after the middle ages. Both Japanese and Europeans made do with what they had though. Low quality iron just means more impurities, which makes it harder to get good quality steel. Not impossible, just more costly, and there's a limit to how good you can get it compared to a place that has very high quality iron to start with (like Toledo).

Overall though I don't think the quality of the metal would matter that much in such a duel. If you give them equipment of roughly equal quality for their respective regions neither would have a marked advantage over the other.

>>2427435
>Why would the chinese import Japanese weapons if theirs were superior
It might've been cheaper than trying to match the quality themselves. It's the same reason why Americans import cheaply made Chinese junk rather than simply making it themselves. They could certainly do a better job, but not at the same price.

>>2427369
>>look at mah weeb sword you guiz this is totally capable of slicing through a scutum because I really like anime and shit

Fascinating, really. A pity that you are wrong and also enjoy sucking all the cocks at once.

>>2427516
This, well said

If its pre-gunpowder Japanese Onin war era Samurai they get wrecked by the Romans.

The Romans by 200 ad had very good cavalry and excellent strategies how to deal with Parthian horse archers. Also Auxilia army fodder could deal adequately with heavy enemy shock troops adequately after centuries of fighting germanics. A Roman legion would absolutely wreck the Samurai, who were no different in armament than the Dacians Trajan conquered.

>>2427620
Question is a 1 v 1 though.

>>2427025
english long bow penetrated european chainmail though

>>2428239
By the time it was "widespread", most of the heavy infantry were wearing more than just chainmail though.

>>2426315

>I don't understand from my basement why soldiers would want to save One of their own
>My vast experience in Rome Total war tells me this is stupid

>>2427621
it ought to be gladiator vs samurai then

>>2422423
>WHO WIN??

Can we ban these retarded childish threads?

>>2427620
by that logic the mongols should have curve stomped the Japanese during the 1st Mongolian invasion

>>2424330
>english longbow

welsh longbow

>>2429031

British longbow

>>2427430
>High quality metal work
Did you know Han China imported iron ingots from the Roman Empire right?

>>2429052
>anything British
>before the 18th century
yeah no...

>>2429079
did you know that was over a thousand years before the period I am describing?

>>2429139
Isnt this thread about roman era?

>>2429155
Its about Romans fighting samurai so when talking about samurai we have to address the period they existed in

>>2429163
I thought samurai existed since the 5th century

>>2429181
Its hard to put an exact date on it but the bushi class rely didn't emerge as a powerful force until the tenth century, though there were accidents before then.

In any case the Chinese really didn't start importing blades until after that.

>>2429181
The Samurai emerged in the 10-11th centuries and really came to proeminence in both military and politic fields in the 12th century.

File: 2a38b47d015d5fc436d0c5e8e5e81e92.jpg (83KB, 1200x799px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 1200x799px

>>2426474
Marian era Legionary > Constantinian era comitatenses > Polybian Legionary > late 5th century comitatenses > Camillan Legionary > Trajan's Lorica Shitmentata Legionary

My unironic opinion on their cool factor.

>>2428447
>>I don't understand from my basement why soldiers would want to save One of their own
It's actually massively out of character for romans. They were fucking callous.

who was more of a manlet?

what would a 100AD japanese warrior be carrying?

would the samurai be a polearm fighter too?

Nobunaga-era samurai with no firearms or explosives

vs

Julius Caesar-era legionnaire

If we are talking about armies
you should put Chinese warrior
At least is more realistic and both of them knew each other existence (sadly they never interacted each other)

fun fact: China empire believed that romans were lost chinese and that is why they have a different culture

>>2423149
All warriors are about speed and quick attacks
You can have the best weapons and armour
but if you are slow you're literally dead by getting parried and stabbed in the belly.
>inb4 hur dur then why they just don't smack the swords quickly till they hit something

you get tired and you get stabbed

>>2422423
Roman.
Japs are manlets

File: c50f96d0769320b774845551d5678424.jpg (85KB, 736x1070px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 736x1070px

>>2429922

you only say that cause you can't handle how eff ayy these steel bands are

>>2432536
Cute pantyhose

one on one I'd back the samurai for skill and agility. Army to army roman military training i.e phalanx would crush and standing samurai comprised army.

>>2422423
Rome needs us?
But really you need to define what eras here, the Roman Empire lasted until 1453

>>2422435
>>>/jp/

File: b633776360d24a9b54ba4a7d4ed7e6f6.jpg (469KB, 1024x836px) Image search: [Google]

469KB, 1024x836px

>>2432608
>phalanx
The roman legions didn't fight in phalanxes. A phalanx is a Greek/Macedonian/Hellenistic shield wall formation with spears or pikes.

>>2434224
The romans used phalanx lad...

>>2422423
In terms of large numbers on either sides, I'd go with Romans. Strategical geniuses who's strategies relied on many warriors trained to do the same thing versus many warriors trained for 1 on 1 combat. Formations like the Phalanx highlight the Roman dependency and ingenuity for their large armies. However, in a 1 on 1 combat scenario, it would heavily depend on many factors. We need to know what time period the roman soldier is from, what rank is he, what time period is the japanese soldier from, what rank is he, and the surrounding area. I'd personally say that the Roman soldier would win, but only if he can manage to block any projectiles/long weapon from the samurai. It wouldn't be hard considering the average legionary had a scutum, a very easy shield to use. However depending on how fact the samurai moves and how they approach this the Samurai has a chance as well.

File: roman-testudo-phalanx-formation-army.jpg (54KB, 746x559px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 746x559px

>>2434224
If anything the Romans were better at fighting in phalanxes. The shields they hard were made for this

>>2436213
Samurai certainly understood warfare, while they did accept challenges many of there tactics included nighttime raids and surprise attacks. They were certainly capable of dealing with massed formations in their early days, and by the late sengoku they were using advanced infantry tactics themselves

>>2436221
>The shields they hard

wat

>>2436226
This is very accurate. I was using a peak condition soldier/legion, but if we're being honest roman soldiers probably had a lot of lazy non-peak condition soldiers. I would say that what you said is accurate, but I still think the shield (as long as it can hold up) makes up for most advantages Samurai had.
>>2436227
>Man proves me wrong
>You made a spelling mistake
>Argument debunked
Why do I even go to 4gag

>>2436248
I'm not even the guy you replied to. Don't be so paranoid and overdefensive.

Not every reply you get is an attempt at "disproving you".

>>2422994
>When the anti-x task force is also retarded
I'm going to use this a lot

>>2435979
No, most of the time they did not.

>>2436221
No they fucking weren't and no they didn't.

>>2437540
Phillip 2 nigger

>>2422435
5' 2", servile, rice based diet
5' 6", rudely independent, red meat and gluten based diet
Rhine Iron
Islander granular iron or pig-quality "folded 10 times not 1000, those are ornamental prestige works" iron
Im-fucking-plying

>>2437878
Watch your back senpai you just triggered weebs AND manlets