History tells us the Samurai were the best warriors. Romans may have had better wepeons, but the Sasmurai had the skills. Romans were trained as non-thinking machines. Part of the Samurai training was on how to out think your opponet.
2006-09-16 10:25:08
·
answer #1
·
answered by mother_of_bonehead 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
As individual fighters the Samurai were about the best, but as an organized army I’d have to go with the Romans.
2006-09-16 17:25:47
·
answer #2
·
answered by Repub-lick'n 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
Hi. Intriguing question. The obvious answer, and I am female so I am no expert at warfare, is that they were both great at what they did. The Romans were organized brawlers. The samurai were coordinated specialists. Right? So it is not a question of them fighting one another. It is a questions of recognizing the genius of each.
2006-09-16 17:26:35
·
answer #3
·
answered by Isis 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
Romans are the best. They would kick a samurai's butt.
2006-09-16 17:22:05
·
answer #4
·
answered by AmsterF 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
One on one, I'd say samurai. Legion against legion, I'd say the Romans.
2006-09-16 17:24:57
·
answer #5
·
answered by Ever Learn 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Samurai. They had more sophisticated weaponry since they were around later. In the latter days they even had guns.
http://www.jref.com/glossary/samurai.shtml
2006-09-16 17:23:39
·
answer #6
·
answered by anonfuture 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Romans! Samurai were good just at killing themselves...
2006-09-16 17:23:50
·
answer #7
·
answered by teano 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Whats with all the samurai crap?
2006-09-16 17:22:31
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Samauri's were people who engaged in the art of fighting, Romans had honor, but in my opinion were ravaging beasts.
2006-09-16 17:21:43
·
answer #9
·
answered by ? 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Just give me Maximus, I don't need Fu Man Chu. Oh, forgot he was Chinese, wasn't he. Never mind.
2006-09-16 17:27:55
·
answer #10
·
answered by Mightymo 6
·
0⤊
1⤋