Printable View
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
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.
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.
samurai vs hoplites in formation would probably win easily in a frontal attack. In broken ground, trees etc. probably other way around.Quote:
Originally Posted by [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.
Besides, which spartans are you talking about. The later ones were so debased by inbreeding as to be worthless.
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-cg...cons/smile.gif
but who win and who looses allso depends on the ground, trees, etc etc
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......Quote:
Originally Posted by [b
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-cg...s/rolleyes.gif
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.
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:
Originally Posted by [b
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by [b
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.
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.
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.
a wise proverb "Amateur commanders talk tactics,proffesional commanders talk logistics"
so it all depends on both armies logistics
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-cg...icons/wink.gif
I may lack wisdom but thats just how I see it
SD.
Spino,Quote:
Originally Posted by [b
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!http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...icons/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-cg...icons/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-cg...s/confused.gif (joke)
Hakonarson,Quote:
Originally Posted by [b
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.
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.
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.
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
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-cg...-2thumbsup.gif
one on one.... samurai. In a big pitched battle with hoplite tactics and the glory seeking samurai-non-tactics... the hoplites
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-cg...ns/biggrin.gif
For their times both where great at what they did cant deny that..
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.
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-cg...ns/biggrin.gif
(Hoplites) http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg.../ht_knight.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg.../ht_knight.gif - http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...s/gc-rifle.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...s/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.
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.
I agree, however, As somebody has already said the knoght won't win against a machine gun and it's gunner
Oh ho ho ho, a good one.Quote:
Originally Posted by [b
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
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-cg...nquisitive.gif
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.
Kukrikhan, please lock this topic up http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ns/gc-help.gif
samurai had better technology and every thing they win