Spartan Hoplite v Samurai...

[hellenes]

Many legends have surrounded these tow types of warriors both dedicated to victory or death. But the distant ways of warfare and group tactics create an interesting debate about if these tow types met each other in the battle who would win.

"...in courage they knew no equal..."
thucededes

[Leet Eriksson]

I'd think the hoplites win,since there society is militiaristic,and children from 7 were trained to be battle hardned warriors.the Samurai were picked from the nobility and probably did not exprience the rigors of training of the spartans when they were young.also add the 300 spartans who held 200,000 persians.

[spmetla]

I think one on one the Samuri would win. But seeing as the Spartans trained for war in formations I think any group of 4 or more Spartans would defeat the Samari.

I'm think Yari Samuri, not No Dachi or archers.

[desdichado]

Quote[/b] (faisal @ Oct. 10 2003,11:58)]I'd think the hoplites win,since there society is militiaristic,and children from 7 were trained to be battle hardned warriors.the Samurai were picked from the nobility and probably did not exprience the rigors of training of the spartans when they were young.also add the 300 spartans who held 200,000 persians.
samurai vs hoplites in formation would probably win easily in a frontal attack. In broken ground, trees etc. probably other way around.

Spartans weren't that good. They only held (they did lose in the end) the 200,000 persians with the help of 3-4,000 other greek hoplites and they were fighting across a narrow front flanked by mountains where the lighter armed persians couldn't flank or use numbers to any advantage and had to attack front on - perfect for the hoplites.

Besides, which spartans are you talking about. The later ones were so debased by inbreeding as to be worthless.

[Lazul]

I think the samurai would win if they had No-Dachi swords... hehe... CHOP CHOP CHOP... no more hoplites... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

but who win and who looses allso depends on the ground, trees, etc etc

[Hakonarson]

Quote[/b] (desdichado @ Oct. 10 2003,01:02)]Spartans weren't that good. They only held (they did lose in the end) the 200,000 persians with the help of 3-4,000 other greek hoplites and they were fighting across a narrow front flanked by mountains where the lighter armed persians couldn't flank or use numbers to any advantage and had to attack front on - perfect for the hoplites.
Actually it was about 1100, Thespeians IIRC - so yeah, I guess you're right - 1400 Greeks can't have been that good to hold off all of those Persians who surrounded them......

Mind you those Japanese degenerated too - I don't think the later ones would ahve been much use agaisnt Spartans.........too much Toyota http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

[71-hour Ahmed]

What made the spartans inbred so much?

In a massed battle hoplites are better but I doubt samurai would fight in the ordered manner hoplites do so it would confuse the greeks. That and superior unit flexibility (cavalry, archers) gives then an edge. One on one, the two swords and good armour gives them the edge, as it they get past the spear they would win against poor greek swords. The spear would need to be passed though and the lack of a shield would be an issue.

Thespian/Thracian (not sure which) hoplites would fare better I think as they had better tacticians and the ability to creatively adapt tactics would be essential in this. Spartans and samurai were both pretty stuck in their ways.

[Spino]

Quote[/b] ]Spartans weren't that good. They only held (they did lose in the end) the 200,000 persians with the help of 3-4,000 other greek hoplites and they were fighting across a narrow front flanked by mountains where the lighter armed persians couldn't flank or use numbers to any advantage and had to attack front on - perfect for the hoplites.

The Spartans were that good, at least when it came to waging the kind of warfare they were drilled and trained to fight all their lives. You're forgetting about the battle of Plataea where the combined army of the allied Greek city states defeated the numerically superior Persian army commanded by Mardonius (the odds were anywere from 2 to 1 or 4 to 1). Spartan soldiers under the command of Pausanius were instrumental in defeating Mardonius' forces and unlike Thermopylae did not benefit from any sort of advantage afforded by the terrian.


Quote[/b] ]Besides, which spartans are you talking about. The later ones were so debased by inbreeding as to be worthless.

While inbreeding may have contributed to Sparta's decline it was not the primary, secondary or even tertiary cause of Sparta's decline. Sparta's main problem was its Lycurgian constitution and its 'ultra' traditional societal structure, both of which failed to encourage a healthy reproduction rate and ultimately prevented Sparta from adopting the necessary changes that would have allowed it to adapt to internal and external pressures.

So long as we are taking the best representation of martial ability from both societies I must go with Japan's Samurai. Given the close minded nature of Spartan society and its failure to devise and adopt new battlefield tactics I have little doubt Samurai warriors would consistently triumph over their Spartan counterparts on the battlefield.

[spmetla]

Don't make the mistake of thinking that the spartans didn't use cavalry or missile units. Although all the nobility and true spartans were in the Phalanx the lesser Spartans were in the supporting role or rode as cavalry.

Also remeber your trying to compare two civilations from vastly differnt time periods. The spartans relied on primarily bronze armor and shields and that their technology and methods were the best for the time periods (600BC and before). The Samuri that I think we're referring to (1500s) had centuries of perfecting their armor and weaponry. Not to mention they were making use of western gunpowder and technology.

I think in order to compare the two we'll need to decide on equipment.

And I think it's safe to say we're imagining them meeting in battle on open level terrain in summer conditions.

[Stratagos Desaix]

I think its a matter of whose commanding the respective force's.Armies are merely weapons with which Strategi duel so if you take two professionally trained armies and pit them against each other its down to who is the superior tactician IMHO
SD.

[Leet Eriksson]

a wise proverb "Amateur commanders talk tactics,proffesional commanders talk logistics"

so it all depends on both armies logistics

[Stratagos Desaix]

I'd say logistics are a tactical/strategic consideration and would relegate it behind psychological factors,you could have enough supplies for a year but if your soldiers think they've lost or want to go home no amount of logistical foresight will save you.Professional commander's talk logistics, great captains inspire http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
I may lack wisdom but thats just how I see it
SD.

[desdichado]

Quote[/b] (Spino @ Oct. 11 2003,07:02)]The Spartans were that good, at least when it came to waging the kind of warfare they were drilled and trained to fight all their lives. You're forgetting about the battle of Plataea where the combined army of the allied Greek city states defeated the numerically superior Persian army commanded by Mardonius (the odds were anywere from 2 to 1 or 4 to 1). Spartan soldiers under the command of Pausanius were instrumental in defeating Mardonius' forces and unlike Thermopylae did not benefit from any sort of advantage afforded by the terrian.
Spino,

I did not mean that Spartans were probably not the best soldiers of the day, I am just tired of people representing them as some sort of invincible warrior, like pretending roman legions were unbeatable. I agree their martial prowess was second to none at the time but if iirc at Platea they actually tried to withdraw but were caught in the open and had to fight the Persians and won a great victory. I think a majority of the warriors were not confident of victory and besides it would be easy to presume the persians were hungry and low on morale after a difficult winter spent trying to feed so many soldiers and horses mouths. It is always easier to be the defender than the invader, even more so in ancient times.

Besides if Mardonis had used better tactics he may have won. By engaging the hoplites on their terms he gave away an advantage, namely mobility as he had more and better cavalry I think. A mostly infantry army trapped on the plains would soon die under a constant and unanswerable barrage of arows i would think (as I learned very quickly against the GH in MTW&#33http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Sparta also could not really put many soldiers in the field at any one time and to my mind this dimishes their prowess as a force.

Also, I think the Spartans did suffer from inbreeding and that this was part of their downfall. It is apparently documented in the Parthenaie that when the Messenian wars kept the warriors away from home for many years that a group of warriors was sent home to couple with all virgins of child bearing age. I have also read that when a couple did not produce children another male was used to prpoduce offspring. not the way to keep a healthy population you will agree.

I am not saying this was the only cause of their downfall, their strict rules against allowing outsiders into their ranks was at least as much to blame but I still maintain it would have had an effect over a few centuries.

I am however not an expert on this so feel free to rebuke any of my assertions http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

despite the above, there are still things I admire about Spartan socitey, although not there treatment of the Helots or crippled infants but I stand by my belief they were not unbeatable which i think is not unreasonable although in a front on fight I think they had no equal at the time.

Besides, don't the rules state that swords beat spears or is MTW not historically accurate http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif (joke)

[desdichado]

Quote[/b] (Hakonarson @ Oct. 10 2003,20:37)]Actually it was about 1100, Thespeians IIRC - so yeah, I guess you're right - 1400 Greeks can't have been that good to hold off all of those Persians who surrounded them......
Hakonarson,

I think there were about 4,000 to start with. There were other contingents from Greek states. The Spartans and Thespians remained at the end and died, the rest withdrew.

They certainly weren't surrounded, it was a narrow valley and an even narrower pass up to the battlefield - so 4,000 (I have read 10,000 but i think this number is overstated) of the best close combat infantry in Europe or Asia could and did easily hold off for a time a greater number of lighter armed Persians (and Medes, Indians etc), who could not deploy archers or cavalry to take advantage of their greater numbers. Just a straight up brawl of attrition.

[Spino]

Desdichado, we're definitely on the same page. I simply believe that inbreeding or not, Spartan society was doomed to fail the moment it adopted the Lycurgian constitution. Whether we're talking about individuals or entire societies failure to adapt to a changing environment by adopting new practises, beliefs, tactics, etc. is a surefire recipe for disaster.

[Hakonarson]

The Spartans were surrounded by the Persians gettign through the path that led around their position.

there had been 4,000 Greeks before they were surrounded, but the remainder had left when it was learned that the Persians were about to attack them in hte rear as well - they had to hurry to get away.

Some Thebans also stayed - but then deserted to the Persians when Leonidas was killed.

[desdichado]

Hakonarson,

I seem to remember reading somewhere that the Thebans actually fought on the side of the Persians at Platea but I wasn't sure as they had been fighting against them at Thermopylae - is this correct. I hadn't heard they switched at Thermopylae though this could account for their change of allegiance?

p.s apologies to Hellenes for hijacking your topic

[ah_dut]

Gah My samurai go chop chop we kill all your damn hellenic hoplites. u have bronze we have steel, bring em on http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-2thumbsup.gif

[makkyo]

one on one.... samurai. In a big pitched battle with hoplite tactics and the glory seeking samurai-non-tactics... the hoplites

[Basileus]

I think its preety hard to compare the 2, we are talking about 1500 years of time diffrence here heh, Comparing troops of the same time period i understand but 1500 years?, machingunner vs kinghts anyone? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

For their times both where great at what they did cant deny that..

[SwordsMaster]

what I realized from this last few "someone vs someone else" threads, is that Sun Tzu was right.Noone gives a concrete Yes or no answer but everyone considers terrain, formation, morale, logistics and everything else.

I say that the ones who would win will be the ones with better logistics and the ones who really need to win.

[ROCKHAMMER]

It all depends on the Samurai unit involved. No Dachi or Ysri Samurai would probably come out on top in this conflict better than any of the others. The No Dachi's would just simply cut down the spears used by the Hoplites and then commence to chop them up next. The Yari Samurai would probably fare even better just because there fighting tactics were more fluid than the fixed ranks of the Hoplites. Watch the movie "Heaven and Earth" and you will see what I mean. They were able to use there Yari with more flexibility than a Hoplite would be able to use his weapon. This is just my opinion on the matter so don't crucify me if your opinion is different. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[Sjakihata]

(Hoplites) http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/ht_knight.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/ht_knight.gif - http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-rifle.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-rifle.gif (Samurai)

besides, samurai would overwhelm them and use so much cav that the hoplites would run away in fear cowering in delfi or something.

[BDC]

It's a bit unfair putting Hoplites in bronze armour up against samuris with steel swords... "Like a hot knife through butter" comes to mind.

[ah_dut]

I agree, however, As somebody has already said the knoght won't win against a machine gun and it's gunner

[The Wizard]

Quote[/b] (Spino @ Oct. 10 2003,21:02)]
Quote[/b] ]Spartans weren't that good. They only held (they did lose in the end) the 200,000 persians with the help of 3-4,000 other greek hoplites and they were fighting across a narrow front flanked by mountains where the lighter armed persians couldn't flank or use numbers to any advantage and had to attack front on - perfect for the hoplites.

The Spartans were that good, at least when it came to waging the kind of warfare they were drilled and trained to fight all their lives. You're forgetting about the battle of Plataea where the combined army of the allied Greek city states defeated the numerically superior Persian army commanded by Mardonius (the odds were anywere from 2 to 1 or 4 to 1). Spartan soldiers under the command of Pausanius were instrumental in defeating Mardonius' forces and unlike Thermopylae did not benefit from any sort of advantage afforded by the terrian.
Oh ho ho ho, a good one.

The Persians lost Plataea not because of the Spartans and their prowess, but because of Mardonios.

The Spartans and their allies had manouevred themselves into a bad position, while Mardonios did not repeat the mistake of Datis at Marathon and positioned his army just like it was supposed to have been positioned.

Persian tactics outmatched the Spartans' immobile phalanx, as well as those of their allies, and such they were in grave danger of losing the protection of the phalanx.

However, they had a stroke of great luck. Mardonios was out for glory, not only victory, and he led a charge of Persian cavalry to break the Spartan phalanx itself, frontally nonetheless. Mardonios died, impaled, and the Persians lost heart even in the light of an impending victory. Spartan doggedness had outmatched Persian wit.



~Wiz

[Rosacrux]

Pitching military systems with 18 centuries difference between them, isn't really all that brilliant or productive.

It's not like knights vs machinegunners (at worst 10 centuries difference) it's like roman legion vs machinegunners. Ridiculous... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-inquisitive.gif

[The Sword of Cao Cao]

Thats exactly true. It's absolutely rediculous pitting a bronze age army against a gunpowder age one. I'm starting to regret posting in this topic.

[ah_dut]

Kukrikhan, please lock this topic up http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-help.gif

[scooter_the_shooter]

samurai had better technology and every thing they win

[The Sword of Cao Cao]

It'd be nice to see an intelligent post from you.

https://forums.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

[ah_dut]

Quote[/b] (The Sword of Cao Cao @ July 16 2004,14:23)]It'd be nice to see an intelligent post from you.

https://forums.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif
he's usually so, but on a technology front the hoplite is outclassed. however, some may argue an effectively used combined arms approach would beat a 'normal' samurai army but i dont really agree. https://forums.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-clown.gif

[lonewolf371]

Just because the samurai had steel doesn't mean they automatically win, remember: samurai had bamboo armor. https://forums.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-jester.gif

[The Sword of Cao Cao]

0.0

dude, you obviously have on idea what your talking about. Samurai yoroi was madeo f metal and wood fibers along with a very little bit of bamboo. Samurai yoroi is also considered by many to be one of the best forms of armour out there. And Spartans didnt wear armour to begin with. THey had the red cloak and hoplon.

[Gregoshi]

Quote[/b] (The Sword of Cao Cao @ July 17 2004,17:15)]dude, you obviously have on idea what your talking about.
That is not the kind of line that leads one to civil and enlightening discussion. You may disagree with someone and they may be misinformed, but there is no need to put them down for it.

[The Sword of Cao Cao]

Sorry, I simply mean that you dont... know what oyur talking about dude. I'm not trying to insult just stating a fact. Please if your not sure about what your saying, do a little research.

[lonewolf371]

In case the smilie didn't tip you off, it was a joke.

[The Sword of Cao Cao]

We have a joke smiley. It's this little dude with a jester hat. Use him, and i might be "tipped off"

[lonewolf371]

Ok, I edited my post.

[ah_dut]

warning thyis may bore you to death and beyond and is probably wrong
In the begining, the spartans did have a lot of armour, but they later abandoned their armour for their Ekidromoi(SP?) and adopted shorter swords to promote stabbing as opposed to slashing. The lack of armour was later mirrored all over greece to match the more agile Lakedomon(sp?) hoplite who actually discarded his armour in the first place to be able to catch peltasts and run faster in the first place.
As everybody followed suit and discarded their armour and adopted shorter swords, one may argue it was a prototype of legionary style warfare. https://forums.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/idea.gif
So the spartans were that good one on one maybe better than the samurai but the spartans whrere too conservative to last. Early spartans with their armour may well have stood a better chance against the teppo and arrows of the samurai and increasingly the ashigaru. later spartans without armour are vulnerable to heavy missile fire. also the spartans and probably the thessalians (arguably the best horse men in greece at the time of spartan hegemony) so their flanks may well have been not covered that well. also, peltasts and citizen archers are clearly no match for the samurai and ashigaru archery and teppo. Also we are not talking just about the spartans when they went to war. We must also take into accoubnt their allies. and by the end of Sparta, helot hoplites, would these have held the line in the face of large missile fire and teppo (which would have been pretty bloody scary) I think the Spartan Spartans may well have done but their allies i'm not so sure.
In hand to hand combat i may well give the victory to the Spartans whose teamwork in the phalanx is obviously undeniable. they have shields which are a big advantage. Also one may take into account i believe that Tokugawa Ieyasu got 80,000 men onto the field in certain fields. While the Spartans may whoop ass 1-1 or 1000-1000 the Samurai warlords (the daimyo) could easily, IMO summon many times more men into the fray so Sparta may win some battles but not the war. It's population was simply too small.
Thank you for listeninig to my (probably incorrect) rant on the subject.

[lonewolf371]

Yea but including logistics and resources really doesn't make it a fair comparison. Sparta (and much of Greece) was on rocky terrain unfit almost entirely for farming. Japan at least had some valleys and fields in which farmers could find a fair amount of success. The resources of Japan would by far out-match those of Sparta. The original topic I believe was asking for a man-to-man comparison of which military system was better. IMO the Spartan system, when it first originated, was probably the best in the world with its tactics and use of the phalanx against the other city-states. But the major factor that caused Sparta to fall and what would cause Sparta to lose in this case is the fact that they would not change their style of warfare to face a new enemy. Out of all the Spartan military history the only major change would probably be that of constructing a fleet to crush Athens, and that was largely a one-timer. The samurai, however, often adapted to their enemies, as can be seen in their inventive styles of warfare (use of muskets, new tactics, early armored ships). These are some of possibly the more larger reasons why Sparta fell to Rome and Japan did not to the Golden Horde.

[ah_dut]

that is the point, I have stated man for man the spartans may win but in a proper all out war, the samurai may well whoop the hoplite's ass so bad it will take a decade to recover https://forums.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[lonewolf371]

In many ways this is rather depressing for me, I've always admired the Spartans. https://forums.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif

[ah_dut]

true, but when did sparta ever manage to haul 80,000 men including allies onto a battlefield, prolly never, the samurai could and would do this on a few occasions.
And yes i do admire the Spartans as well https://forums.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[Inuyasha12]

Quote[/b] ]Pitching military systems with 18 centuries difference between them, isn't really all that brilliant or productive.

It's not like knights vs machinegunners (at worst 10 centuries difference) it's like roman legion vs machinegunners. Ridiculous...



True a army of spartans would be slaughtered by a army of samurai.

I still think that a single spartan warrior could take a samurai and woop his a**

[The Sword of Cao Cao]

Thats a little rediculous. Your Spartan is in bronze, my samurai is in steel. The hoplon isnt gunna hold of the katana very long, besides the earliest samurai, or rather the samurai that were around in Japan at this time, would be mounted, with a very powerful bow.

This entire argument is rather pointless if you ask me. It's like pitting a Redcoat against a machine-gunner.

[Gregoshi]

Okay, we have a lot of comments about the inequity of Spartans vs the Samurai. Let's level the playing field then. Give the Spartans steel, equalize the army sizes, etc. Given all things relatively equal, who wins? A little explanation of why you pick one over the other would be nice too. https://forums.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-inquisitive.gif

[lonewolf371]

Simple, the spartans would set up their phalanx and start marching towards the Japanese. If the Japanese tried a frontal assault those taking part would be slaughtered. Learning from this, they would divide their forces and use their mobility to transfer a large amount of their forces to the Spartan flanks and rear. If the Spartans remain in their original phalanx then they would be slaughtered by the flanking forces. If they formed, oh say, a square formation, the Japanese would pepper them with arrows until they were weak enough to engage in melee combat.

This is assuming it would take place on a flat field. Obviously terrain could be a major factor as well. If the Spartans were facing the Japanese in a confined area, in which the borders of the battlefield was comprised of impassable terrain (a river, cliffs, the like) the Spartans might be able to trap the Japanese against the front of the phalanx and slaughter them. In most cases considering the terrain, the Japanese would win, due to the superior flexibility of their forces, the exact same reason why the Romans were able to conquer Greece.