>>28528 Samurai >longer steel sword >experience/training in 1 on 1 combat >not trained to fight in big units like Roman troops Of course in a battle between large units of both the legionaires would win
>>28528 Samurai were extremely well prepared and highly capable of war against other Samurai. Legionaries were well prepared and capable of war against a wide range of enemies with different tactics, weaponry and armor. Take a guess.
>>28688 >>28799 The Samurai, on a battlefield, would use a spear and a bow. The sword became their primary weapon only through the decadent peace of the Edo period, when their practical battle potential was subverted with the introduction of the highly ritualized forms of swordsmanship.
A 17th-century samurai would do poorly against a legionary. First of all, he is equipped unlike any of his usual opponents. Second of all, he fights dirty.
>>28688 Its called the iron age for a reason >>28918 Because as armor got better, shields got smaller. Gaius and Tojo over here still have shitty strips of steel, that can't reliably stop the other's weapon.
>>28528 Depends on what era samurai. Heian era warriors had shields. Most Ashikaga samurai fought with bows and spears. Hell, there were samurai with guns. Samurai win if you don't make the distinction because they have technological superiority.
>>28528 Let me tell you why this is degenerate. In no event would they find them selves in a 1v1 fight. And since im already here, it wouldnt take more than 2 legions to absolutely destroy entire Japan, they would only be able to stand up to rome when gunpowder became prominent in the boshin war. So all in all it would take them 1600 years of advantage to be able to stand up to Europeans.
>>29957 There was already relations between China and Japan, so if the Romans ever found themselves attacking Japan they would have to deal with China, too, which was the most technologically advanced civilization on the planet at the time. Rome gets BTFO.
>>30225 This is what everyone seems to be ignoring. Katana are good CUTTING weapons, they are shit piercing weapons. Good shield usage and a good armor puts anyone using a katana at an enormous disadvantage.
On the other hand, Samurai had other weapons and the katana wasn't even the preferred one. The japanese used spears in their melee combat in big battles.
>>30245 Because by the time of the Ming dynasty, and indeed for much of Chinese history, there was simply no competition to drive the nation to further exploration and colonization. It was the undisputed center of the Asian world. Europe rose to prominence due to internal competition Pic related; a comparison between the ships of the explorer Zheng He and Columbus.
Define "global." Imperial China did at times extend right up to the edge of Persia, and they did get influential in Central and Southeast Asia when they weren't busy either being isolationist or splitting apart into different states and fighting each other.
>>30327 but the scutum and gladius are specifically designed to fight against barbarians who charge straight at you w/o shields and with longswords, so you can stab them in the abdomen while hiding behind your shield
2 inches in the right places > 6 inches in the wrong
>>28528 Samurai because they would be mounted on horseback and were expert archers. They wouldn't even need to dismount, the Romans were never able to really counter horse-archers and were raped by the Parthians for the same reason.
>>30459 >>30097 These are the only valid answers, someone tell me how a Roman solider could have beat a horse-back archer, because they consistently failed. The fact that you armchair historians are so intent on posturing about this, without even realizing the samurai used horses is embarrassing.
>>30502 Because these threads are literally posted all the time on /k/. This is an established /k/ topic, and this is very obviously a shallow discussion of two different warriors based on their arms and armor.
>>30532 I never said they did not invade anyone. I said that there was no real competition to drive it to advance further, unlike Europe. What you're doing is the equivalent of plugging your ears. You have to admit that Chinese civilization was on par, if not more advanced than, the west for a long while.
>>28528 There are alot of back and forth arguments, but I feel like the samurai would have a better chance, considering the legionary would be better at formation drills, rather than one on one combat.
>>30532 >china never invaded anyone because they were already big Ftfy.
The most serious invasion attempt by China was the Southern Expansion. Of the many Southeast Asian races that lived in what is now Southern China, only Vietnam managed to be independent. And they were held for 1000 years.
In the steppes most of their shitfights were defensive or pre-emptive largely because WHAT THE HELL are you going to conquer in those empty places. Yaks?
Three ways to do this >One man against another Samurai are much better at one man combat >A group of legionaries versus a group of samurai of equal size Legionaries are infinitely better in numbers and the line tactics were better than samurai >An army vs an army depends entirely on the generals
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from them. If you need IP information for a Poster - you need to contact them. This website shows only archived content.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content you can contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with that post and thread number and it will be removed as soon as possible.